Serving Athena: The Festival of the Panathenaia and the Construction of Athenian Identities 1108485278, 9781108485272

Citation preview

Serving Athena

In ancient Athens, the Panathenaia was the most important festival and was celebrated in honour of Athena from the middle of the sixth century bc until the end of the fourth century ad. This in-depth study examines how this all-Athenian celebration was an occasion for constructing identities and how it affected those identities. Since not everyone took part in the same way, this differential participation articulated individuals’ relationships both to the goddess and to the city, so that the festival played an important role in negotiating what it meant to be Athenian (and non-Athenian). Julia Shear applies theories of identity formation which were developed in the social sciences to the ancient Greek material and brings together historical, epigraphical and archaeological evidence to provide a better understanding both of this important occasion and of Athenian identities over the festival’s long history. julia l. shear is a CHS Fellow in Hellenic Studies at the Center for Hellenic Studies of Harvard University and a Senior Associate Member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, having previously held a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens and positions at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, and the University of Glasgow. She is the author of Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 2011), which was shortlisted for the Runciman Award in 2012, and has published a significant series of articles on Athenian religion, memory, society and culture. She has also excavated extensively on various sites in Greece, Italy and Cyprus and especially in the Athenian Agora in Athens in Greece.

Serving Athena The Festival of the Panathenaia and the Construction of Athenian Identities

julia l. shear Center for Hellenic Studies, Harvard University, Washington, DC American School of Classical Studies at Athens

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia 314 321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi 110025, India 79 Anson Road, #06 04/06, Singapore 079906 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108485272 DOI: 10.1017/9781108750943 © Julia L. Shear 2021 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2021 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Shear, Julia L., 1968 author. Title: Serving Athena : the festival of the Panathenaia and the construction of Athenian identities / Julia L. Shear, Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington. Other titles: Festival of the Panathenaia and the construction of Athenian identities Description: Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020034974 (print) | LCCN 2020034975 (ebook) | ISBN 9781108485272 (hardback) | ISBN 9781108719384 (paperback) | ISBN 9781108750943 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Panathenaia Greece Athens History. | Festivals Greece Athens. | Athena (Greek deity) Cult Greece Athens. | Athens (Greece) Social life and customs. | Athens (Greece) Religious life and customs. Classification: LCC DF123 .S54 2021 (print) | LCC DF123 (ebook) | DDC 292.36 dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020034974 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020034975 ISBN 978 1 108 48527 2 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Serving Athena

In ancient Athens, the Panathenaia was the most important festival and was celebrated in honour of Athena from the middle of the sixth century bc until the end of the fourth century ad. This in-depth study examines how this all-Athenian celebration was an occasion for constructing identities and how it affected those identities. Since not everyone took part in the same way, this differential participation articulated individuals’ relationships both to the goddess and to the city, so that the festival played an important role in negotiating what it meant to be Athenian (and non-Athenian). Julia Shear applies theories of identity formation which were developed in the social sciences to the ancient Greek material and brings together historical, epigraphical and archaeological evidence to provide a better understanding both of this important occasion and of Athenian identities over the festival’s long history. julia l. shear is a CHS Fellow in Hellenic Studies at the Center for Hellenic Studies of Harvard University and a Senior Associate Member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, having previously held a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens and positions at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, and the University of Glasgow. She is the author of Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 2011), which was shortlisted for the Runciman Award in 2012, and has published a significant series of articles on Athenian religion, memory, society and culture. She has also excavated extensively on various sites in Greece, Italy and Cyprus and especially in the Athenian Agora in Athens in Greece.

Serving Athena The Festival of the Panathenaia and the Construction of Athenian Identities

julia l. shear Center for Hellenic Studies, Harvard University, Washington, DC American School of Classical Studies at Athens

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia 314 321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi 110025, India 79 Anson Road, #06 04/06, Singapore 079906 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108485272 DOI: 10.1017/9781108750943 © Julia L. Shear 2021 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2021 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Shear, Julia L., 1968 author. Title: Serving Athena : the festival of the Panathenaia and the construction of Athenian identities / Julia L. Shear, Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington. Other titles: Festival of the Panathenaia and the construction of Athenian identities Description: Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020034974 (print) | LCCN 2020034975 (ebook) | ISBN 9781108485272 (hardback) | ISBN 9781108719384 (paperback) | ISBN 9781108750943 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Panathenaia Greece Athens History. | Festivals Greece Athens. | Athena (Greek deity) Cult Greece Athens. | Athens (Greece) Social life and customs. | Athens (Greece) Religious life and customs. Classification: LCC DF123 .S54 2021 (print) | LCC DF123 (ebook) | DDC 292.36 dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020034974 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020034975 ISBN 978 1 108 48527 2 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Serving Athena

In ancient Athens, the Panathenaia was the most important festival and was celebrated in honour of Athena from the middle of the sixth century bc until the end of the fourth century ad. This in-depth study examines how this all-Athenian celebration was an occasion for constructing identities and how it affected those identities. Since not everyone took part in the same way, this differential participation articulated individuals’ relationships both to the goddess and to the city, so that the festival played an important role in negotiating what it meant to be Athenian (and non-Athenian). Julia Shear applies theories of identity formation which were developed in the social sciences to the ancient Greek material and brings together historical, epigraphical and archaeological evidence to provide a better understanding both of this important occasion and of Athenian identities over the festival’s long history. julia l. shear is a CHS Fellow in Hellenic Studies at the Center for Hellenic Studies of Harvard University and a Senior Associate Member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, having previously held a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens and positions at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, and the University of Glasgow. She is the author of Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 2011), which was shortlisted for the Runciman Award in 2012, and has published a significant series of articles on Athenian religion, memory, society and culture. She has also excavated extensively on various sites in Greece, Italy and Cyprus and especially in the Athenian Agora in Athens in Greece.

Serving Athena The Festival of the Panathenaia and the Construction of Athenian Identities

julia l. shear Center for Hellenic Studies, Harvard University, Washington, DC American School of Classical Studies at Athens

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia 314 321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi 110025, India 79 Anson Road, #06 04/06, Singapore 079906 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108485272 DOI: 10.1017/9781108750943 © Julia L. Shear 2021 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2021 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Shear, Julia L., 1968 author. Title: Serving Athena : the festival of the Panathenaia and the construction of Athenian identities / Julia L. Shear, Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington. Other titles: Festival of the Panathenaia and the construction of Athenian identities Description: Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020034974 (print) | LCCN 2020034975 (ebook) | ISBN 9781108485272 (hardback) | ISBN 9781108719384 (paperback) | ISBN 9781108750943 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Panathenaia Greece Athens History. | Festivals Greece Athens. | Athena (Greek deity) Cult Greece Athens. | Athens (Greece) Social life and customs. | Athens (Greece) Religious life and customs. Classification: LCC DF123 .S54 2021 (print) | LCC DF123 (ebook) | DDC 292.36 dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020034974 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020034975 ISBN 978 1 108 48527 2 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

In memory of IMS and for TLS and RSS

Contents

List of Figures [page ix] List of Tables [xiv] Preface [xvii] List of Abbreviations [xxi]

1 The Panathenaia: An Introduction [1] 2 Giants and Heroes: The Mythologies of the Panathenaia [39] 3 The Little Panathenaia [83] 4 The Great Panathenaia: Ritual and Reciprocity [116] 5 The Panathenaic Games: Entertaining the Goddess [171] 6 Creating Identities at the Great Panathenaia: Athenian Men [212] 7 Creating Identities at the Great Panathenaia: Other Residents and Non-Residents [253] 8 The City, the Goddess and the Festival [314] Appendix 1 The Hellenistic Archons of Athens: 323/2 to 48/7 bc [336] Appendix 2 The Parthenon Frieze and the Panathenaia [344] Appendix 3 The Races for the Apobates and the Dismounting Charioteer [351] Appendix 4 The Pyrrhiche and the Tribal Team Events [357] Appendix 5 The Date of IG II2 3079 = IG II3.4 528 [361] Appendix 6 The Officials of the Great Panathenaia in the Third Century bc [366]

vii

viii

Contents

Appendix 7 Tiberius Claudius Novius and the Great Panathenaia Sebasta [377] Appendix 8 The Text of Agora XVIII C197 [380] Tables [390] Bibliography [457] Index Locorum [498] Index of Collections [512] General Index [518]

Figures

1.1 Panathenaic amphora by the Euphiletos Painter, c. 520 bc: Athena (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 14.130.12). (Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Rogers Fund, 1914) [page 2] 1.2 Panathenaic amphora by the Euphiletos Painter, c. 520 bc: runners in a men’s sprint race (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 14.130.12). (Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Rogers Fund, 1914) [3] 1.3 Restored plan of the Agora in the fifth century ad. (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations) [9] 1.4 Restored plan of the Agora in the second century bc. (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations) [10] 1.5 Restored plan of the Agora in the second century ad. (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations) [11] 1.6 Panathenaic amphora attributed to the Robinson Group, c. 430 bc: detail of the boys’ wrestling match (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, IN 3606). (Courtesy of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen) [30] 1.7 Panathenaic amphora attributed to the Kuban Group, c. 410–400 bc: detail of pentathletes in the class of beardless youths (National Museum, Copenhagen, 13812). (Courtesy of the Nationalmuseet, Denmark, photograph by Lennart Larsen) [31] 1.8 Panathenaic amphora, 340/39 bc: detail of boxers in the class of beardless youths (Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, MA, 1925.30.124). (Courtesy of the Harvard University Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Bequest of Joseph C. Hoppin; © President and Fellows of Harvard College) [32] ix

x

List of Figures

2.1 Red-figure cup attributed to either the Euergides Painter or the manner of the Epeleios Painter, c. 510 bc: two pyrrhichistai and an auletes (Antikenmuseum der Universität, Heidelberg, 74/1). (Courtesy of the Antikensammlung der Universität Heidelberg, photograph by Hubert Vögele) [48] 2.2 SEG LIII 202 = IG II3.4 435: Atarbos’ base, 323/2 bc: dancers in the pyrrhiche (Akropolis Museum, Athens, 1338). (Courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut-Athen, Neg. D-DAI-ATH-1972–3004, photograph by G. Hellner) [48] 2.3 Black-figure Panathenaic-shaped amphora attributed to the manner of the Lysippides Painter, c. 530–520 bc: Gigantomachy. Zeus steps into the chariot next to Herakles, while Athena fights beside the horses (British Museum, London, B 208). (© The Trustees of the British Museum) [49] 2.4 Black-figure oinochoe by the Painter of Oxford 224, c. 510 bc: Athena and Erichthonios in the apobatic race (National Museum, Copenhagen, Chr. VIII 340). (Courtesy of the Nationalmuseet, Denmark, photograph by Nora Petersen) [56] 2.5 Fragment of a black-figure kantharos, c. 560 bc: Gigantomachy. Detail of Zeus stepping into his chariot and the legs of Athena behind the horses (National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 2134a). (From B. Graef and E. Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen I, Berlin, 1925: pl. 94) [59] 2.6 Black-figure amphora by the Painter of Vatican 365, c. 530 bc: Gigantomachy. An anonymous warrior steps into the chariot next to Herakles, while Athena fights beside the horses (Musei Vaticani, Rome, 365). (Courtesy of Alinari/Art Resource, NY, photograph by Anderson) [60] 2.7 Black-figure neck amphora attributed to the Group of London B 145, c. 530 bc: Gigantomachy. An anonymous charioteer and warrior stand in the chariot, while Athena fights beside the horses (British Museum, London, B 251). (© The Trustees of the British Museum) [61] 2.8 Black-figure column krater, c. 540–530 bc: Gigantomachy. Athena fights beside the horses, while an anonymous

List of Figures

2.9

2.10

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

charioteer drives (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 24.97.95). (Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Fletcher Fund, 1924) [62] Black-figure lekythos by the Sappho Painter, c. 500–490 bc: Gigantomachy. Detail of the chariot and Athena (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 41.162.35). (Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Rogers Fund, 1941) [63] Black-figure lekythos by the Sappho Painter, c. 500–490 bc: Gigantomachy. Detail of the horses and a Giant (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 41.162.35). (Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Rogers Fund, 1941) [64] Fragmentary black-figure lekythos by the Edinburgh Painter, c. 500 bc: sacrifice to Athena (National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 2298). (From B. Graef and E. Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen I, Berlin, 1925: pl. 96) [135] Fragment of a black-figure vase, end of the sixth century bc: sacrifice to Athena (National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1220). (From B. Graef and E. Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen I, Berlin, 1925: pl. 67) [136] Parthenon frieze, 447–440 bc: apobatic chariots and marshal from the procession (N63–5) (Akropolis Museum, Athens, block North XXIII). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Archives: Alison Frantz Photographic Collection) [136] Parthenon frieze, 447–440 bc: the peplos scene (E31–5) (British Museum, London, block East V). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Archives: Alison Frantz Photographic Collection) [137] Black-figure band cup, c. 550 bc: sacrificial procession to Athena (Stavros S. Niarchos Collection, A 031). (Photograph: D. Widmer, photo no. 837) [138] Fragment of a black-figure dinos by Lydos, c. 560–550 bc: top register: chariot of Zeus from the Gigantomachy; middle register: sacrificial procession (National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 607e). (From B. Graef and E. Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen I, Berlin, 1925: pl. 33) [139]

xi

xii

List of Figures

4.7a Black-figure amphora, c. 540 bc: side B: musicians in a sacrificial procession (Staatliche Museen, Berlin, F 1686). (© bpk-Bildagentur/Antikensammlung, SMB, Image 00042777, photograph by Johannes Laurentius) [141] 4.7b Black-figure amphora, c. 540 bc: side A: sacrificial procession to Athena (Staatliche Museen, Berlin, F 1686). (© bpkBildagentur/Antikensammlung, SMB, Image 00042776, photograph by Johannes Laurentius) [142] 4.8 The organisation of the Parthenon frieze, 447–440 bc. (Drawing: C. Kolb after I. Jenkins, The Parthenon Frieze, London, 1994: 23 fig. 12b.) [143] 4.9 Parthenon frieze, 447–440 bc: marshals and kanephoroi in the procession (E49–56) (Musée du Louvre, Paris, block East VII, inventory Ma 738). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Archives: Alison Frantz Photographic Collection) [143] 4.10 Parthenon frieze, 447–440 bc: females in the procession (E57–61) (British Museum, London, block East VIII). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Archives: Alison Frantz Photographic Collection) [144] 4.11 Parthenon frieze, 447–440 bc: a skaphephoros in the procession (N13) (British Museum, London, block North V). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Archives: Alison Frantz Photographic Collection) [145] 4.12 Parthenon frieze, 447–440 bc: hydriaphoroi who are followed by auletai in the procession (N16–20) (Akropolis Museum, Athens, block North VI). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Archives: Alison Frantz Photographic Collection) [146] 4.13 Parthenon frieze, 447–440 bc: sacrificial sheep with their handlers in the procession and a marshal (N10–12) (Akropolis Museum, Athens, block North IV). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Archives: Alison Frantz Photographic Collection) [147] 5.1 Panathenaic amphora attributed to a painter near the Kleophrades Painter, c. 500–480 bc: mule-cart (apene) race (British Museum, London, B 131). (© The Trustees of the British Museum) [189]

List of Figures

A2.1 Parthenon frieze, 447–440 bc: the procession at the northwest corner (N134–6 and W1) (British Museum, London, block North XLVII/West I). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Archives: Alison Frantz Photographic Collection) [346] A2.2 Parthenon frieze, 447–440 bc: apobatic chariots in the procession with an armed apobates and an attendant (N70–2) (British Museum, London and Akropolis Museum, Athens, block North XXVII). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Archives: Alison Frantz Photographic Collection) [348] A3.1 Agora XVIII C195 = IG II3.4 578: [K]rat[e]s’ base for his victory in the apobatic race, c. 390 bc (Agora Excavations, Athens, S 399). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations) [352] A3.2 Panathenaic amphora attributed to the Marsyas Painter, 340/ 39 bc: detail of the apobatic race (J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, 79.AE.147). (Courtesy of the J. Paul Getty Trust’s Open Content Program) [352] A8.1 Agora XVIII C197: list of victors in the Panathenaia, 194 and 190 bc: inscribed face (Agora Excavations, Athens, I 6701). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations) [381] A8.2 Agora XVIII C197: list of victors in the Panathenaia, 194 and 190 bc: left side of the block (Agora Excavations, Athens, I 6701). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations) [382] A8.3 Agora XVIII C197: list of victors in the Panathenaia, 194 and 190 bc: bottom of the block with a dowel hole (Agora Excavations, Athens, I 6701). (Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations) [382]

xiii

Tables

3.1 Distribution of meat from the sacrifices at the Little Panathenaia [page 390] 4.1 Officials in the procession of the Great Panathenaia [390] 4.2 Athenian military in the procession of the Great Panathenaia [391] 4.3 Bearers of ritual items in the procession of the Great Panathenaia [392] 4.4 Chremes’ procession in Ekklesiazousai and the Great Panathenaia [393] 4.5 Colonists and allies in the procession of the Great Panathenaia [393] 4.6 Conveying the peplos in the procession of the Great Panathenaia [394] 4.7 Sixth-century visual evidence for the procession at the Great Panathenaia [396] 4.8 Archaic and classical visual evidence for the procession at the Great Panathenaia [397] 4.9 The procession at the Great Panathenaia in the archaic and classical periods [398] 4.10 Sacrifices to Athena at the Great Panathenaia [399] 4.11 Crowns for Athena [400] 5.1 Visual evidence for the musical games in the archaic period [401] 5.2 The musical games after 446 bc [404] 5.3 Athletic events for men: literary and epigraphical sources [408] 5.4 Athletic events for men: Panathenaic amphorae [414] 5.5 Athletic events for boys: literary and epigraphical sources [422] 5.6 Athletic events for boys: Panathenaic amphorae [424] 5.7 Athletic events for beardless youths: Panathenaic amphorae [425] xiv

List of Tables

5.8 Athletic events for beardless youths: literary and epigraphical sources [426] 5.9 Open hippic events: literary and epigraphical evidence [428] 5.10 Open hippic events: Panathenaic amphorae [432] 5.11 Tribal hippic events for individuals: the classical period [438] 5.12 Tribal hippic events for individuals: the Hellenistic period: contests on the Panathenaic Way [439] 5.13 Tribal hippic events for individuals: the Hellenistic period: contests in the hippodrome [443] 5.14 The development of individual tribal hippic contests on the Panathenaic Way in the second century bc [446] 5.15 The development of individual tribal hippic contests in the hippodrome in the second century bc [448] 5.16 Tribal events for teams [449] 5.17 Restored programme for the games in 566 bc [451] 5.18 Restored programme for the games in 482 bc [451] 5.19 The programme for the games in the 380s bc [452] 6.1 Athenian benefactors of the city [453] 7.1 Ephebes as benefactors of the city [454] 7.2 Foreign benefactors of the city [456]

xv

Preface

My interest in the Panathenaia first started when I was a young graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania in the early to mid 1990s, when there was much discussion of J. B. Connelly’s interpretation of the Parthenon frieze, which was eventually published in the American Journal of Archaeology in 1996 (as Connelly 1996). In due course, I wrote a doctoral dissertation on the history and development of the festival. This book, however, is not simply a revised (and abbreviated!) version of that dissertation: in the second decade of the twenty-first century, it is not novel to say that a festival which went on for almost a thousand years changed over time, in large part because of scholarship done during the 1990s (and including my dissertation). Instead, I have shifted the project to focus on a neglected, but important, aspect of the Panathenaia: the ways in which the occasion created identities for the Athenians and other participants. Like my first book, Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens, this monograph also puts into practice my approach to writing ancient (Greek) history: that we must do history holistically by using all our evidence and cutting across subdivisions (and sub-subdivisions) of the field and that we must draw on approaches developed in the social sciences in order to understand the ancient (Greek) material. As some responses to drafts of the book’s chapters indicate, this approach will be challenging for some readers of this book. It is, however, the direction in which the study of ancient (Greek) history needs to go. I hope to have constructed the book, and more importantly, its indices, in such a way that readers for whom such an approach is uncongenial may still extract information about the festival. In the course of writing, rewriting and editing this book, I have been helped by many friends and colleagues and I have incurred many scholarly debts. I particularly owe the greatest thanks to Simon Goldhill and Robert Parker, who both read the entire book in draft, and to Graham Oliver and Robin Osborne, who each read drafts of several different chapters and also provided much other help and advice, often at short notice. Since all of these individuals had read at least part, if not all, of my dissertation, I am especially grateful for their willingness to help me with this book. Robert’s discussion of the Panathenaia in Polytheism and Society at Athens is closely

xvii

xviii

Preface

imbricated with my work on the festival and, indeed, it served as commentary on my dissertation before he read the book-draft. I have benefited also from the help, advice and generosity of many friends while I was writing this book and it is my great pleasure to thank especially: Danielle Kellogg, Nigel Kennell, Susan Lupack, Agis Marinis, Bill Morison, Ümit Öztürk, Nicholaos Papazarkadas, Cameron Pearson, T. Leslie Shear, Jr, Evi Sikla, Ann Steiner, Andy Stewart, Ron Stroud and Steve Tracy. My ideas on the Panathenaia were also tried out on the students in my graduate seminar Greeks and the Divine and my undergraduate course Religion and Society in Ancient Greece at Boğaziçi University in Istanbul; in return for their patience, their willingness to engage with my ideas and their interest in the project, I now extend my very warm thanks. Some of the material in this book was presented, often in rather different form, at the annual conferences of the Classical Association in 2005 and 2013; the annual meetings of the American Philological Association (now the Society for Classical Studies) in 2014; the Athens Greek Religion Seminar in 2015; and at several conferences: in Athens, ‘The Panathenaic Games’ conference and the conference ‘Ascending and Descending the Acropolis: Sacred Travel in Ancient Attica and Its Borders’; and in Oxford, the 13th International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy. To all the participants at these various occasions, I extend my warmest thanks. For facilitating access at crucial moments to the university libraries at Liverpool and Princeton, I am very grateful to Graham Oliver and April Miller respectively. In collecting the images which illustrate this book, I have incurred a series of different debts. For their help and advice, I would like to thank Christina Kolb, Marion Meyer, John Oakley, Alan Shapiro and especially Jenifer Neils and Tarek Elemam. I am immensely grateful to Konstantinos Tzortzinis, who went out of his way at a very difficult and busy time to do the digital work on a number of images for me and who also gave me some invaluable pointers in the process. In addition, I must thank the following individuals and their institutions: Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan at the Archives of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens; Craig Mauzy and Sylvie Dumont at the Agora Excavations in Athens; Joachim Heiden at the DAI Fotothek in Athens; Polly Lohmann at the Antikensammlung der Universität Heidelberg; Frederik Engel Møller at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen; Diana Edkins at Art Resource in New York; and Jacklyn Burns at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu. I am also very grateful to the Akropolis Museum and to the Ephoreia of the

Preface

Anquities of the City of Athens for permission to reproduce images of material in the museum and from the Agora Excavations in the e-book. Several institutions have also made this book possible. This book was written, rewritten and edited while I was at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens and while I was an Onassis Foundation Visiting Instructor in the Department of History at Boğaziçi University in Istanbul. At the School, I would like to thank Jenifer Neils, the current director, and her predecessors, Jim Wright and Jack Davis, as well as the staff of the School, for all their help and support. I am especially grateful to Ioanna Damanaki, the Assistant to the Director, for her help with the paperwork for the e-book. My colleagues at Boğaziçi were endlessly supportive of a project on a period and culture far from their own research and one which could not be completed in Istanbul. I am also very grateful to Taner Bilgiç, who was Vice-Provost (International Relations) for much of my time at the university, for supporting this project and my research at some very crucial moments and smoothing out various bureaucratic problems. At The Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation, it is my pleasure to thank the President and the Board of Directors for generously supporting my position at Boğaziçi; at the Foundation’s Athens office, I would like to thank Effie Tsiotsiou, the Executive Director, and especially Olga Delidakis, the Associate to the Executive Director. The last stages of preparing the final text for submission to the Press were done while I held a National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Fellowship at the American School in Athens.1 For permission to look at material in their care, I would like to thank Sylvie Dumont, the secretary and registrar at the Agora Excavations, and Athanasios Themos, the director of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens, and the staffs of both collections, as well as Angelos Chaniotis and Marcia Tucker at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. At Cambridge University Press, I must thank above all Michael Sharp for his patience, tact and support during the very long gestation of this volume. I hope that the final product lives up to his expectations! His assistants Sophie Taylor, Hal Churchman and Katie Idle have answered questions quickly and graciously. Caroline Morley, Victoria Parrin, Jane Burkowski and the rest of the production team skilfully produced this printed monograph from all my electronic files and I would like to thank them for all their care and hard work. Thanks are also due to the three anonymous 1

Any views, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this book do not necessarily reflect those of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

xix

xx

Preface

readers for the Press. All of these many individuals have in their own ways improved this book and the remaining imperfections are certainly no reflections on any of them. Finally, I close with a note about the bibliography. It was as up to date as I could make it in September 2018. Subsequently, due to the limitations of the bibliographical resources available to me in Istanbul and a serious family illness during the summer of 2019, I have only been able to add to the bibliography selectively. I have just made partial use of SEG LXIV and I was not able to engage with S. C. Humphreys, Kinship in Ancient Athens: An Anthropological Analysis (Oxford, 2018).

Abbreviations

Abbreviations of the names and works of ancient authors follow the scheme used in The Oxford Classical Dictionary supplemented by those of Liddell, Scott and Jones, A Greek–English Lexicon, 9th ed. Abbreviations for epigraphical works follow the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Abbreviations for journal titles follow L’Année philologique and, for journals not included there, the American Journal of Archaeology. All of these schemes are easily available online. The following abbreviations are also used: ABL ABV Addenda2

Agora

ARV2 Athenian Onomasticon CVA ΕΠΚΑ

FGrHist FHG

Haspels, C. H. E., Attic Black-Figured Lekythoi. Paris, 1936. Beazley, J. D., Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford, 1956. Carpenter, T. H., with Mannack, T., and Mendonça, M., Beazley Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV2 and Paralipomena, 2nd ed. Oxford, 1989. The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton. Beazley, J. D., Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd ed. Oxford, 1963. Byrne, S. G., Athenian Onomasticon. www.seangb.org. Corpus vasorum antiquorum. Paris, 1923–. Ἐφορεία Προϊστορικῶν καὶ Κλασικῶν Ἀρχαιοτήτων (preceded by the number designating the ephoreia involved). Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker I–III. Berlin and Leiden, 1923–58. Müller, C., Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum I–IV. Paris, 1841–70. xxi

xxii

List of Abbreviations

FRH

I.Rhamnous

LGPN II LIMC LSJ9 OCT OLD Page, FGE

Para.

PCG PMG

P.Oxy. RO

TrGF

Beck, H., and Walter, U. (eds. and trans.) Die frühen römischen Historiker, herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert. Darmstadt, 2001–4. Petrakos, V. C., Ὁ Δῆμος τοῦ Ῥαμνοῦντος: Σύνοψη τῶν ἀνασκαφῶν καὶ τῶν ἐρευνῶν (1813–1998) II: Οἱ Ἐπιγραφές. Athens, 1999. Osborne, M. J., and Byrne, S. G., A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names II: Attica. Oxford, 1994. Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. Zurich, 1981–2009. Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., rev. Jones, H. S., A Greek–English Lexicon, 9th ed. Oxford, 1940. Oxford Classical Texts. Glare, P. G. W. (ed.) Oxford Latin Dictionary, 2nd ed. Oxford, 2012. Page, D. L. (ed.) Further Greek Epigrams: Epigrams Before ad 50 from the Greek Anthology and Other Sources, not Included in ‘Hellenistic Epigrams’ or ‘The Garland of Philip’. Cambridge, 1981. Beazley, J. D., Paralipomena: Additions to Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters and Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford, 1971. Kassel, R., and Austin, C. (eds.) Poetae Comici Graeci. Berlin, 1983–. Page, D. L. (ed.) Poetae Melici Gracae: Alcmanis, Stesichori, Ibyci, Anacreontis, Simonidis, Corinnae, poetarum minorum reliquias, carmina popularia et convivialia quaeque adespota feruntur. Oxford, 1962. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri I–. London, 1898–. Rhodes, P. J., and Osborne, R. (eds. and trans.) Greek Historical Inscriptions: 404–323 bc, Edited with Introduction, Translations and Commentaries. Oxford, 2003. Snell, B., Kannicht, R., and Radt, S. (eds.) Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta I–V. Göttingen, 1971–2004; updates Nauck, A. (ed.) Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, 2nd ed. Leipzig, 1889.

1

The Panathenaia: An Introduction

According to his honorary decree voted by the demos or people of Athens in 141/0, Miltiades, the son of Zoilos, of the Attic deme Marathon: also [ga]ve the he[mp] ropes [and] the rest of the things lacking f[or the conveya]nce of the peplos [and al]l the things for the procession and t[he sacrifices o]wed to the [gods] he [ma]de magnificently and [he put o]n t[he games] in a manner worthy both of the [office an]d of the [demos] which had elected [him] and he also [se]lected his daughte[r c. 8 as kanephoro]s [and he] also [sp]ent more for [these expe]nses and he celebr[ated the Panathena]ia conspicuously [and well] and [he paid for] al[l th]e expenses [from his private fu]nds.1

This passage describing Miltiades’ actions as agonothetes or sponsor of the Panathenaia includes many well-known aspects of the festival: the peplos or robe for the goddess, the procession to the Akropolis with the animals for sacrifice, the games and the vast expense, here being met generously by the honorand from his own funds. Other sources add to this kaleidoscope of images: the procession and panoply voted by the people of Priene in 326 as a memorial of their ancient kinship and friendship with the Athenians; the young man boasting in court about his expenditures for victorious tribal teams of pyrrhichistai or dancers in arms in 410/9 and 403/2; the herald shouting out the name of King Ptolemy V to announce his victory for the tribe Ptolemais in the double-length, four-horse chariot race in 182/1; the Panathenaic prize amphorae, originally filled with olive oil and awarded to the victors in the individual contests in the games, and now perhaps the festival’s most well-known image (Figs. 1.1–2).2 Thus, in these and other 1 2

IG II2 968.48 55; date: Habicht 1988: 242 3. I.Priene 5.1 6 I.Priene 2014 5.1 6; Lys. 21.1, 4; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.40 2; for Panathenaic amphorae, see generally Bentz 1998; Tiverios 2007: 1 19; Themelis 2007: 25 9. The date of I.Priene 5 is derived from the reference to Diphilos, the Athenian general on Samos, in line 17, because he also seems to have been listed in this office in IG II2 1628.119 20, a text certainly dated to 326/5; Hiller von Gaertringen on I.Priene 5; Develin 1989: 400; LGPN II s.v. Δίφιλος 34; Blümel and Merkelbach on I.Priene 2014 5.

1

2

Introduction

Figure 1.1 Panathenaic amphora by the Euphiletos Painter, c. 520 bc: Athena (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 14.130.12).

Introduction

Figure 1.2 Panathenaic amphora by the Euphiletos Painter, c. 520 bc: runners in a men’s sprint race (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 14.130.12).

3

4

Introduction

ways, Athenians and non-Athenians celebrated the goddess Athena with great festivities culminating in the sacrifices on the Akropolis on 28 Hekatombaion, the first month of the official year.3 That the people of Priene chose to link their offerings for Athena to their ancient kinship with the Athenians immediately suggests that more was at stake in their decision than honouring the goddess. Similarly, Ptolemy V clearly thought it important to compete not in the hippic events open to all participants, but in the competitions limited to Athenian citizens, who represented their tribes; nor was he alone: the victors’ lists of the second quarter and the middle of the second century bc show such participation by other members of his house and of the Attalids of Pergamon.4 For them, the opportunity to demonstrate their Athenian citizenship was certainly not to be missed. Participation in these tribal events was also important for Athenian citizens, as our boastful (and wealthy) young man’s statements in court make clear. That there was an important connection between the festival, the city and its inhabitants is further brought out by the celebration’s very name: Panathenaia or ‘all-Athenian’. In order to understand these dynamics, we must ask how individuals took part in the celebration, why participating in these festivities called ‘all-Athenian’ was so important and how doing so created identities for the individuals and groups involved. Since the primary purpose of the Panathenaia was to honour the goddess Athena, all participants became players in a reciprocal, but unequal, relationship with the goddess. As I shall argue, Athenians’ involvement further marked out their membership in the group of ‘all the Athenians’, while for others, both individuals such as Ptolemy V and collectives such as the people of Priene, taking part in the celebration placed them in relationship to the community of ‘all the Athenians’.5 Not all individuals, however, could take part in the same way, and the opportunities also changed over time, as we shall see. This differential participation articulated individuals’ relationships both to the goddess and to the community so that the festival played an important role in negotiating what it meant to be Athenian (and non-Athenian). Since the Panathenaia commemorated the gods’ martial success against the Giants in 3

4 5

Date: Prokl. In Ti. 1.9a b; schol. Pl. Resp. 1.327a; Mikalson 1975: 23, 34; Parker 2005: 256. Since the first new moon after the summer solstice marked the beginning of Hekatombaion, the month fell in the high summer. See further Shear 2007c: 135 40. The Athenians’ association of the festival with Theseus’ unification of Attica indicates that they understood the word πάντες, all, in Παν αθήναια, ‘all Athenian’; Jacoby, FGrHist IIIb Suppl. II: 509; Parker 2005: 255 note 10; below Chapter 2. This interpretation is specific to the Athenian celebration and is not (necessarily) relevant to other festivities called Panathenaia in other cities, which had their own explanations; on these occasions, see Ziehen 1949: 489 93.

Introduction

the Gigantomachy, it was also a victory celebration which was unified by this military theme. As I shall argue, the festival served to create identities both at the level of individuals and at the level of the worshipping community of ‘all the Athenians’. Neither the celebration nor Athenian identities were static, so that changes in one sphere affected the other and vice versa. When our boastful young man described his expenditures to the court, he focused on specific details, not generalities: ‘in the archonship of Glaukippos (410/9), for pyrrhichistai at the Great Panathenaia, (I spent) eight hundred drachmai’, ‘in the archonship of Diokles (409/8), at the Little Panathenaia, (I spent) for a cyclic chorus three hundred (drachmai)’ and ‘in the archonship of Eukleides (403/2) . . ., at the Little Panathenaia, I was choregos for the beardless pyrrhichistai and I spent seven mnai’.6 His specific terminology, Great Panathenaia (Παναθηναίοις τοῖς μεγάλοις) and Little Panathenaia (Παναθηναίοις τοῖς μικροῖς), reveals what the simple term Panathenaia conceals: that there were two versions of the festival. According to Harpokration, the one was held every year and the other was held every pentaeteris or five-year period, counting inclusively, and was known as the Great Panathenaia.7 His explanation of the terms is somewhat misleading, because the Little Panathenaia was not, in fact, held annually, but in every three years of the pentaeteris, while, in the fourth year, the Athenians celebrated the great or penteteric festival. Nevertheless, ancient Athenians could occasionally refer to the Little Panathenaia as ‘the Annual Panathenaia’ (τὰ Παναθήναια τὰ κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτόν).8 Most frequently, however, they simply referred to the celebration as the Panathenaia without the addition of further terms. The distinction between the two versions of the festival ought to go back to the introduction of the Great Panathenaia in 566/5 bc.9 After that date, the 6 7 8

9

Lys. 21.1, 2, 4. A choregos sponsored the chorus of his tribe at a specific festival. Harp. s.v. Παναθήναια; repeated by Phot. Lex. s.v. Παναθήναια. Little Panathenaia is more common; see e.g. Lys. 21.2, 4; Men. fr. 384 (PCG), repeated by Phot. Lex. and Suda s.v. πέμπειν; IG II3.1 447.5 6, 19. Annual Panathenaia: IG II3.1 447.58; cf. Harp. s.v. Παναθήναια; repeated by Phot. Lex. s.v. Παναθήναια. The date 566/5 is given by Eusebius, while the name of the archon, but no date, is known from Marcellinus’ Life of Thucydides in a passage attributing the information to Pherekydes and Hellanikos; Euseb. Chron. s.v. Olympiad 53.3 (Helm: 102b); Pherekyd. FGrHist 3 F2 and Hellanik. FGrHist 4 F22, quoted by Marcellin. Vit. Thuc. 3 4. A further complication is caused by the scholia on Aelius Aristeides’ Panathenaikos which attribute the great festival to Peisistratos; schol. Aristeid. Or. 1.362 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 323 Jebb 189, 4. Since the Great Panathenaia belongs in the third year of the Olympiad, the potential years in question, 566 or 562, do not fit with Peisistratos’ tyranny, and so he cannot have been involved with the foundation; cf. Jacoby, FGrHist IIIb Suppl. II: 508; Cadoux 1948: 104; Davison 1958: 29; below note 10. As Parker observes, ‘the specific date seems less likely to be an invention than the association with the famous Pisistratus’; Parker 1996: 89; cf. R. Osborne 1993: 35 6. Our

5

6

Introduction

penteteric celebration was held every fifth year counting inclusively. For nearly 700 years, until the autumn of ad 124, the Great Panathenaia fell in the first month of the Athenian official year and early in the third year of the Olympic cycle.10 With the Athenians’ reorganisation of their calendar in ad 124, the festival remained in Hekatombaion and retained its relationship to the Olympic games, but its position within the Athenian official year was altered because the year now began with Boedromion and Hekatombaion became the second-to-last month of the official year.11 Although the festival was still held in the summer of the modern calendar year of, for example, 127 and 131, it now fell at the end of the official years of 126/7 and 130/1, rather than at the beginning of the years 127/8 and 131/2, as it had before the reign of Hadrian. These calendrical complexities particularly affect the dates of celebrations when they are presented in terms of the Athenian official year and not the modern calendar. Athena’s festival continued many years after Hadrian’s reign, but it did not go on indefinitely. Our evidence for its end, however, is extremely meagre. The latest epigraphical evidence, an honorary statue base for a certain Ploutarchos, belongs to the late fourth or early fifth centuries ad.12 It commemorates the three occasions when Ploutarchos ‘sailed’ the sacred ship to the temple of Athena on the Akropolis and the text in no way indicates that the festival had ceased to be held regularly when it was inscribed. This same man also seems to have set up an honorary statue for the praetorian prefect Herculius, who held office in the years ad 408–10.13 He was, therefore, still active as late as 410, hence the statements by some scholars that the festival continued until at least this year.14

10

11 12 13 14

evidence, consequently, points to 566/5, the year of Hippokleides’ archonship, and eliminates Peisistratos’ involvement; cf. Cadoux 1948: 104, 122; Develin 1989: 41; Lavelle 2014: 315 20. Not all scholars have been deterred: see e.g. Ziehen 1949: 459; Corbett 1960: 57 8; Scarpi 1979: 83 4; Shapiro 1989: 19 21; Robertson 1992: 91 3; Neils 1992a: 20 1; Wohl 1996: 36 7; Larmour 1999: 164 5; Deacy 2007: 230; Canali De Rossi 2011: 30. Third year of Olympiad: e.g. A. Mommsen 1898: 47 8; Deubner 1932: 23; Cadoux 1948: 104; Neils 1992a: 14 15; Shear 2012d: 159. For dated celebrations of the Great Panathenaia, see e.g. Thuc. 6.56.2 with Arist. Ath. Pol. 19.2, 6 (assassination of Hipparchos); Lys. 21.1 (victory with pyrrhichistai in 410/9 bc); IG II2 3019 IG II3.4 430 (victory in torch race in 346/5 bc); 3023 IG II3.4 431 (victory in 338/7 bc); and probably IG II2 1461.18 20 with the supplements of Woodward 1940: 403 (shields from 330/29 bc). See further Shear 2012d: 159 72 with additional bibliography. IG II2 3818 13281; date: Sironen 1994: 48. IG II2 4224 13283; Sironen 1994: 48, 50 1; Frantz 1988: 63 4. Neils 1992a: 13; B. Nagy 1980: 110 11; Castrén 1989: 47; Wachsmann 2012: 238 note 5; cf. Sironen 1994: 46 7; Remijsen 2015a: 62.

Introduction

It is unlikely, however, that the festival survived the ad 390s. In February and June of 391, Theodosius I issued two edicts banning sacrifices of all kinds, closing the temples and imposing fines on individuals who disobeyed the provisions.15 Since these documents were specifically directed towards Rome and Alexandria, they should be responses to officials in those cities, as Alan Cameron has observed, but scholars have not hesitated to understand them as intended for the whole empire.16 Subsequently, in November of 392, a further edict was issued to Rufinus, the praetorian prefect of the East, which banned sacrifices ‘in any place at all and in any city’, divination, the burning of incense and any veneration of the lares and penates and imposed penalties on anyone performing any sacrifices in public temples and other places.17 A further edict to Rufinus in 395 removes the right of approach to any temple or shrine and forbids sacrifices in any place.18 Since Rufinus was the praetorian prefect for the East, it is likely that copies of this legislation were sent to the provincial governors under him.19 For many scholars, this legislation marks the decisive moment for pagan rituals and hence an end for major festivals.20 Edicts as early as 341, however, had already banned various sorts of sacrifices and, in 356, access to temples was also proscribed.21 Furthermore, public sacrifices already seem to have been in serious decline in the East before the reign of Julian, because of the absence of funding, both public and private, necessary to sustain them.22 Festivals seem to have continued in many areas, but without the sacrifices which scholars normally associate with them. There was also considerable regional variation as individual cities and their festivals responded to local circumstances.23 In Athens, too, local events seem to have been responsible for the end of Athena’s festival: in 396, Alaric and the Visigoths attacked Athens and caused much destruction in the north-west part of the city, an area now outside the fortifications 15 16

17 20

21

22

23

Cod. Theod. 16.10.10 11. Specific response: Cameron 2011: 60 3; whole empire: King 1961: 77 82; Williams and Friell 1994: 121 3; Fowden 1998: 553; Price 1999: 164 5. Cod. Theod. 16.10.12. 18 Cod. Theod. 16.10.13. 19 Cameron 2011: 61. E.g. King 1961: 84 6; Harl 1990: 7 8, 13 14, 17, 19; Williams and Friell 1994: 123 5; Fowden 1998: 533; Price 1999: 164 5; Belayche 2005: 358; Cameron 2011: 61 with note 121; cf. Salzman 2011: 176 7; Remijsen 2015a: 47, 173. Sacrifices: Cod. Theod. 16.10.2, 4 7, 9; temples: Cod. Theod. 16.10.4; on the date, see Cameron 2011: 61 with note 123. Bradbury 1995: 341 56; Cameron 2011: 65 7; Maxwell 2012: 854, 856; cf. Fowden 1998: 550; Remijsen 2015a: 184 7. For the situation in Rome and Italy at the end of the fourth century, see Salzman 2011: 167 77. E.g. Harl 1990: 14 15, 19 20; Bradbury 1995: 343 5, 355; Price 1999: 165 8; Cameron 2011: 783 7; Maxwell 2012: 853 4.

7

8

Introduction

which had been built in the late third century ad.24 When rebuilding commenced in the Agora in about 410, the new construction was a large villa, the so-called Villa of the Giants, not civic structures (Fig. 1.3); like all such villa buildings, it looked inward and, unlike its predecessors in the square, it provided no vantage points for watching the procession as it proceeded along the Panathenaic Way (Figs. 1.4–5).25 This project, therefore, represents a radical change in the use of this space and it should indicate that the Panathenaia and its elaborate procession were no longer being held. The festival was certainly not part of living memory when Proklos arrived in Athens late in ad 430 or early in 431, as we can see from his Commentary on Plato’s Timaios.26 Proklos explains that the Republic and the Timaios were set on successive days, on 19 Thargelion, the day of the Bendideia, and on 20 Thargelion, which Proklos clearly and wrongly identifies as the occasion of the Little Panathenaia!27 In about 439, when he was writing (the first draft of) his commentary, Proklos plainly had no personal experience of these festivities and they were no longer in the living memory of his contemporaries;28 instead, he relied on earlier writers, whom he mentions, and thus he also uses the past tense to describe the date of the Great Panathenaia in his text.29 Proklos’ confusion would suit a date for the final celebration of the festival in the 390s and it clearly demonstrates that both the procession and also the Panathenaia itself had ended well before his arrival in Athens.

Goddess, Polis, Identities and Scholarship The Panathenaia, accordingly, is positively attested for almost 1,000 years, from 566/5 bc until the ad 390s. A version will have existed before the 24

25

26

27

28 29

Frantz 1988: 6 7, 25, 48 9, 53 6; Castrén 1994a: 9. These fortifications are frequently known as the ‘post Herulian walls’. Villa: Thompson 1988: 95 116, pls. 6, 54, 55a; Frantz 1988: 65 with note 65. The entire building south of the first and north court was surrounded by a wall and so further cut off from the area of the Agora and the Panathenaic Way. Consequently, no part of the building can have been ‘designed expressly for watching the [Panathenaic] procession’, as Thompson claims; Thompson 1988: 111. Date: Saffrey and Westerink 1968: xii xiii. Note also Baltzly and Tarrant’s emphasis on the closeted nature of ‘Athenian pagans’ at this time; Baltzly and Tarrant 2007: 4 5. Prokl. In Ti. 1.9a b, 1.26e, 1.27a; cf. Prokl. In Prm. 1.643, where the information about the Timaios is repeated. Date of Commentary: Marin. Procl. 13.10 17; Luna and Segonds 2007: xv xvii. Earlier writers: Prokl. In Ti. 1.9b, 1.27a; Great Panathenaia: Prokl. In Ti. 1.9b. Dam. Isid. fr. 273 (Zintzen) quoted by Suda s.v. Ἀρχιάδας does not indicate that the festivities continued in the middle of fifth century; contra: Puech 2002: 393 note 1; Trombley 1993: 322 3.

Goddess, Polis, Identities and Scholarship

9

Figure 1.3 Restored plan of the Agora in the fifth century ad. The so called Villa or Palace of the Giants occupies the centre of the marketplace. There are no longer obvious places from which to watch activities on the Panathenaic Way.

institution of the penteteric festival in 566, but the changes which took place at that time have obscured the celebration’s earlier history. As the city’s most important festival, the Panathenaia regularly features in

10

Introduction

Figure 1.4 Restored plan of the Agora in the second century bc. The stoas and other buildings provide vantage points for watching the procession.

scholarly studies of both Athenian and Greek religion, but always as part of a larger whole rather than the focus in its own right. Early scholars of the festival collected the evidence available to them and clearly sought to be comprehensive, but their discussions tend to be static and synchronic.30 They also worked before the extensive epigraphical discoveries of the Agora Excavations and other sites elsewhere in Greece and Turkey. Nevertheless, these studies remain important for their efforts to synthesise a large body of disparate material. More recent examinations generally focus on the archaic and classical periods, rather than the whole spectrum

30

A. Mommsen 1898: 41 159; Deubner 1932: 22 35; Ziehen 1949: 457 89.

Goddess, Polis, Identities and Scholarship

11

Figure 1.5 Restored plan of the Agora in the second century ad. Although the centre of the square has much less open space than in the second century bc, the different buildings still provide places for watching the procession.

covered by the celebration.31 Since the Panathenaia is simply one part of a larger study, it is usually presented statically and synchronically, rather 31

E.g. Parke 1977: 33 50; Simon 1983: 55 72; Burkert 1983: 154 8; Robertson 1992: 90 119; Bruit Zaidman and Schmitt Pantel 1992: 105 8; Price 1999: 30 5; Parker 2005: 253 69; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 263 311; Larson 2016: 142 8. The Panathenaia also appears in Parker’s and Mikalson’s diachronic studies of Athenian religion, but the nature of these projects does not allow for specific chapters on individual festivals; Parker 1996 s.v. Panathenaea; Mikalson 1998 s.v. Panathenaia.

12

Introduction

than diachronically. For our project, the most important contribution of these recent works comes from Robert Parker, who stresses that participation in the Panathenaia was differential: that not everyone took part in the same way.32 Specific aspects of the celebration have also been discussed in specialist articles, both in journals and in volumes of essays, particularly Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens and Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and Parthenon.33 Although these studies are often quite specific about period and occasion, there remains a focus on the archaic and classical periods and rather less emphasis on change and development over the longue durée than we might expect. The edited volume The Panathenaic Games separates the games from the rest of the celebration, which, in this case, is deliberately not discussed;34 this division mirrors the partition between the sub-fields of Greek religion and Greek athletics.35 The competitions in music and choral events also tend to be segregated off from the rest of the festival.36 Consequently, scholars of athletics tend not to situate the competitions in relationship to the divine, and scholars of religion often seem to regard the contests as marginal and not worthy of discussion. Rather than being a unified occasion for honouring and pleasing the divinity, the festival in question is presented as a disaggregated series of disparate and unrelated elements. A separate subset of scholarship focuses particularly on the Panathenaic prize amphorae.37 The emphasis has been on identifying, measuring and cataloguing the vessels, attributing them to vase painters and so dating them and studying their iconography. Martin Bentz’s study published in 1998 is particularly important for its comprehensive catalogue and discussions.38 Although this scholarship focuses on the archaic and classical periods, some studies have also looked at the prize vases in the 32

33 35

36

37

38

Parker 2005: 256 63; cf. Sourvinou Inwood 2000b: 48 49; P. Wilson 2000: 25 7; Maurizio 1998: 299. Neils 1992c, Neils 1996b. 34 Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007. Contests are hardly discussed in e.g. Burkert 1985; Bruit Zaidman and Schmitt Pantel 1992; Bremmer 1999; Ogden 2007; Sourvinou Inwood 2011; Parker 2011; Haysom and Wallensten 2011. Similarly, religion is not a significant element in e.g. H. A. Harris 1964; Poliakoff 1987; Tzachou Alexandri 1989; Decker 1995; S. G. Miller 2004; Potter 2012. E.g. Kotsidu 1991; Shapiro 1992: 53 75. Note also the absence of such contests from the discussions in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007. E.g. von Brauchitsch 1910; Peters 1942; Frel 1973; Brandt 1978; Beazley 1986: 81 92; Eschbach 1986; Valavanis 1991; Bentz and Eschbach 2001; Tiverios 2007: 1 19; Themelis 2007: 25 9. Bentz 1998. Note that his catalogue numbers are cited here without the abbreviation ‘no.’, e.g. 6.001.

Goddess, Polis, Identities and Scholarship

Hellenistic and Roman periods.39 In addition, the Panathenaia, as the most important festival in ancient Athens, is often invoked in scholarly discussions of all sorts of aspects of life in the city and its history. It appears especially frequently in studies of social and cultural history and of material culture, particularly architecture, sculpture, vase painting and topography.40 In monographs, discussion of the Panathenaia may be extensive, but Athena’s celebration is not the primary focus of such works.41 These treatments often depend on the overviews of Greek and Athenian religion discussed earlier and thus they mirror their static and synchronic accounts. In more recent studies, scholars have linked the literal meaning of the festival’s name, ‘all-Athenian’, with a focus on the community, its achievements and its inhabitants.42 Implicit in this formulation is a close linkage between Greek religion and the city (or polis). As argued very influentially by Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘the polis provided the fundamental framework in which Greek religion operated’ and the resulting system was part of a larger network consisting both of other cities and of Panhellenic religious activity.43 Furthermore, ‘the Greek polis articulated religion and was itself articulated by it; religion became the polis’ central ideology, structuring, and giving meaning to, all the elements which made up the identity of the polis . . . Ritual reinforces group solidarity, and this process is of fundamental importance in establishing and perpetuating civic and cultural, as well as religious, identities.’44 To demonstrate how polis religion functioned, Sourvinou-Inwood drew on various cities and particularly on Athens for specific examples. The Panathenaia is presented as closely connected with Athenian self-definition and the constitution of the polis, but, in keeping with the overall goal of her project, the discussion remains at a fairly abstract level, as if the details and processes of creating these identities were obvious.45 Since the original publication of Sourvinou-Inwood’s two articles in 1990 and 1988, scholars have been 39

40

41 42

43 44 45

E.g. G. R. Edwards 1957; Metaxa Prokopiou 1970: 97 9; Tsouklidou 2001: 33 40; Tsouklidou 2003: 383 95; Tsouklidou 2007: 109 16. E.g. P. Wilson 2000: 36 43, 48 9; Demetriou 2012: 203, 216; Mikalson 2007; Kavoulaki 1999; Ceccarelli 2004; Davies 1967; Beazley 1986: 81 92; Hurwit 1999: 44 7, 382 s.v. Panathenaia; Meyer 2017 s.v. Panathenäen. E.g. G. Anderson 2003: 158 77; Smarczyk 1990: 525 611. E.g. Parker 2011: 201; G. Anderson 2003: 159 60, 176; cf. Neils 1992a: 27; Wohl 1996: 25 7; Maurizio 1998: 297, 316; Kavoulaki 1999: 299, 301 2; and more generally Chaniotis 1995: 157 63, but note that the phenomenon is not a Hellenistic development. Sourvinou Inwood 2000a: 13. Sourvinou Inwood 2000a: 22; cf. Sourvinou Inwood 2000b: 47, 51. Sourvinou Inwood 2000a: 22, 27.

13

14

Introduction

content to remain in this realm of abstraction and they have not attempted to apply these formulations to specific festivals or rituals, much less to do so comprehensively.46 Despite Sourvinou-Inwood’s emphasis on the imbricated relationships between polis religion and identities, scholars working on what it meant to be an Athenian have focused on other areas and particularly on civic ideology in the classical period.47 In the Athenians’ formulation, Athens is properly a democracy, all citizens are politically equal, irrespective of details like actual wealth, and they avail themselves of freedom of speech. The good Athenian is a male citizen and a democrat who fights on behalf of the city and, if necessary, dies for her.48 Above all, these ideal inhabitants are autochthonous through their (imagined) descent from the city’s autochthonous kings, and this connection with their land sets them apart from inhabitants of other cities.49 Good citizenship is performed, and the city offers multiple venues for these performances.50 The emphasis on participation in public life and on fighting as a hoplite immediately identifies the good Athenian as a man of some social standing and means: he is not a member of the lowest Solonian class, the thetai.51 At the same time, the demos appropriated earlier elite practices for its own purposes, and thus the Athenians were presented as all being members of the elite and well-born class known as the kaloi k’agathoi.52 In contrast to male Athenians, the identities of their mothers, wives and daughters have received less attention from scholars. For Susan Lape, they are the out-group or Other which came into play when gender was significant for creating citizen identity, the main focus of her study.53 Women’s Otherness is also stressed by Loraux: for her, they are a race set apart and not autochthonous Athenians.54 Looking particularly at women in the ritual sphere, Barbara Goff argues that their roles 46

47 48

49

50

51 52

53 54

Or else they ignore Sourvinou Inwood’s work completely, e.g. Scafuro 1994; Wohl 1996; Maurizio 1998: 297 317; Kavoulaki 1999: 298 306; G. Anderson 2003: 158 77; Iddeng 2012: 19 21, 27 30; Neils 2012: 199 201. Shear 2007c: 140 5 and Shear 2012c: 27 55 remain partial exceptions to this rule. See e.g. the papers in Boegehold and Scafuro 1994. E.g. Loraux 1986; Hesk 2000: 20 84; Ober 1994: 102 4; Shear 2007b: 151 3, 158 9; Christ 2006: 1 2, 12 13, 24 9, 124 7; Goldhill 1990: 106 14; Shear 2011: 147 54, 259 62, 273 4, 277 83. E.g. Loraux 1993, particularly 3 22, 39 71; Ober 1989: 261 70; and now especially Lape 2010. For Lape, the development of this identity is closely connected with Perikles’ citizenship law and thus belongs after 451/0; Lape 2010: 19 30. E.g. Christ 2006: 1 3, 38 9; Scafuro 1994: 156 70; Lape 2010: 186 98; R. Osborne 2011: 102; cf. Shear 2011: 147 54, 272 4, 292 4. Fighting as hoplite: e.g. Hesk 2000: 23 6; Christ 2006: 1; cf. R. Osborne 2010: 248. E.g. Lape 2010: 26 30, 104 5, 112; Ober 1989: 257 61, 290 1. Kaloi k’agathoi are literally the ‘good and beautiful’, i.e. ‘noble’. Lape 2010: 45 6. Loraux 1993: 72 250. Not all her critics agree; see e.g. Patterson 1986; cf. Lape 2010: 95 100.

Goddess, Polis, Identities and Scholarship

prepare them to be good wives and mothers.55 As with their male relatives, these female identities were performed, particularly by participation in ritual.56 Although Goff’s discussion draws heavily on Athenian sources, her interests are not limited to Athens, and the Panathenaia receives little attention. For metics or foreign residents, as with citizens, the scholarship had focused on ideology, so that Lape has stressed their role as the ideological Other to the citizen, a dynamic linked to the stereotype that metics overvalue money and undervalue their fatherlands.57 In a consideration of multi-ethnic identities in the Mediterranean in the archaic and classical periods, Denise Demetriou briefly examines the identities of both metics and foreigners in the Peiraieus.58 She emphasises that they identified themselves by their native civic identities, and the Athenians also recognised them by their poleis of origin. Religious associations and cults provided metics and other foreigners with a venue for constructing their identities.59 Since metics, as long-term residents, also were assigned to Athenian demes, or local districts of the city, their identities were rather more complicated than Demetriou’s presentation suggests. In discussing adult metic women, Rebecca Kennedy emphasises their position as ‘the ultimate Other’, which was safe as long as they conformed to the norms for citizen women.60 Since the scholarship on Athenian identity focuses on the classical period, there has been no discussion of whether and/or how these identities changed after the death of Alexander in 323 bc. I have suggested elsewhere that, in the second quarter of the second century bc, participation in the individual tribal contests at the Panathenaia allowed Athenian men to continue to demonstrate their status as citizens in an international setting and that the ideal Athenian was still expected to fight on behalf of the city, just as he had been in the classical period.61 Since the connection between citizenship and fighting for the polis seems to have been a fundamental one in Greek thought,62 it is not surprising that it should have retained its power in the Hellenistic period. We need not assume, however, that Athenian identities remained exactly as they had been in the classical 55

56 57

58 59

60 62

Goff 2004. Compare Vernant’s famous dictum: ‘marriage is for the girl what war is for the boy’; Vernant 1982: 23. Lape 2010: 90 1; Scafuro 1994: 162 3. Lape 2010: 49 50; cf. Whitehead 1977, especially 109, 121; on the metic stereotype, see also Bakewell 1999: 10. Demetriou 2012: 188 229. The realia of metics’ participation in religion is the focus of Wijma 2014, but she does not discuss either identity or ideology. Kennedy 2014: 6 (whence the quotation), 26 59. 61 Shear 2007c: 141. Compare Vernant’s dictum quoted above note 55; cf. Kennell 2009a.

15

16

Introduction

period, but this part of the city’s social and cultural history remains to be written. As Éric Perrin-Saminadayar has documented extensively, Athens in the Hellenistic period already was an important cultural centre, a role which seems to have originated in the Lykourgan period.63 Its real development, however, took place after the city regained her freedom from the Macedonians in 229 bc. Religious festivals were an important vector for displaying and disseminating this identity, and it will, in turn, have interacted with the identities of the inhabitants and participants. In the Roman period, scholars have focused particularly on how individuals attempted to negotiate ‘being Greek under Rome’, and their inquiries have centred on the period of the Second Sophistic.64 By focusing on relations with the capital, these discussions leave little room for local identities, a situation now beginning to be rectified.65 How Athenian identities fit into these dynamics and how the city’s inhabitants understood being Athenian under Rome, however, are issues which remain largely unaddressed in this literature.66 Zahra Newby has argued that the ephebeia (military training) continued to identify the young men as future citizen-soldiers prepared to defend the city, while the focus on celebrating the city’s past naval victories allowed the ephebes to ‘define themselves against other cities which could not claim such a past’.67 I have suggested elsewhere that, in some respects, being Athenian entailed a very traditional set of markers: competing for one’s tribe in the dithyrambic choruses for Dionysos, sponsoring such a chorus, belonging to an Athenian deme and holding office in the city.68 This list is obviously limited: Athenian identities in the late first and second centuries ad involved other aspects and elements, and their construction was not confined to the City Dionysia. The Athenians also continued to exploit the leading role played by the city in the Persian Wars in the fifth century bc.69 As is regularly observed, the city was a major cultural centre: this status will also have affected and played out in the identities of both the city and her inhabitants at this time.70 63 64

65 66

67 69

70

Perrin Saminadayar 2007. E.g. the essays in Goldhill 2001, the title of which provides my quotation; Konstan and Saïd 2006; Borg 2004. For these issues in the first century bc, see Schmitz and Wiater 2011. See the essays in Whitmarsh 2010b. Gleason’s essay focuses on Greek/Roman bicultural identity, and Athenian identity hardly figures; Gleason 2010. Borg describes building activities in the first century bc, when the Athenians’ identities were apparently irrelevant; Borg 2011. Newby 2005: 168 92, 199 201 (whence the quotation). 68 Shear 2013b: 403 4, 406 8. E.g. Spawforth 1994; Alcock 2002: 74 86; Spawforth 2012: 103 17, 138 41. I remain unconvinced by Spawforth’s contention that this focus was imposed on Athens by the emperor; his position ignores the use and commemoration of the Persian Wars in the Hellenistic period. Athens as cultural centre: e.g. Bowersock 1969: 17 18 and cf. 4 6; G. Anderson 1993: 24 5, 119 21; Lamberton 1997: 154; Newby 2005: 199 200; Borg 2011: 234; Schmitz 2011: 236 7.

Goddess, Polis, Identities and Scholarship

As this brief summary makes clear, discussions of Athenian identities have focused particularly on the classical period and on the male citizen and, under the Roman empire, on the interrelationship between Greek and Roman, rather than on Athena’s city. In the classical period, scholars have concentrated particularly on the roles of drama, especially tragedy, and rhetoric in creating this ideology of the good citizen, and they have generally not linked their discussions with other media and other arenas. These literary texts were, of course, the creations of individual authors, and thus their intersections with the ideology of the city were not simple, but these complications are generally not acknowledged. In the Roman imperial period, the focus is on the constructions of individual men and again on written sources. In all cases, the emphasis is on elite men who were both the producers and consumers of the texts underlying the scholarship.71 Discussions of Athenian identity are also characterised by the idea that ‘everyone knows more or less’ what the term ‘identity’ means, and so the processes by which identities are created and maintained are not explicated, despite the theoretical awareness of these same scholars in other areas.72 In contrast to this prevailing trend, Susan Lape explicitly draws on Social Identity Theory, which she supplements with a variety of other approaches and especially with studies of the dynamics of racial identities.73 In so doing, she moves well beyond the standard binary of Athenian or Greek/Other which dominates the current scholarship, and she stresses the social contexts of all identities.74 Drawing on work done in the social sciences adds complexity and nuance to her picture of Athenian citizen identity, and it shows clearly in what direction scholarship on identities in the classical world needs to go. Despite Lape’s emphasis on the social nature of these processes, neither the Panathenaia nor religious rituals are discussed. As this summary has made clear, the existing scholarship on Athenian identities is limited, and much work remains to be done,

71 72

73 74

Spawforth describes Athens in slightly different terms as the ‘cradle of humanitas’, again imposed by the emperor on the city; Spawforth 2012: 146 (quotation), 152 5, 204 6, 231, 247 9. Such a view ignores Athens’ role as cultural centre in the Hellenistic period; above note 63. Compare Goff 2004: 13 14. Quotation: Lawler 2008: 1. The problem is not limited to studies of Athenian identities. In the introduction to Local Knowledge, Whitmarsh’s concern is to define ‘local’ and Bommas, in his introduction, focuses on explicating ‘cultural memory’; Whitmarsh 2010a; Bommas 2011. A similar problem exists with discussions of ethnic identities, which tend to focus on other literature in scholarship of the classical world; see e.g. Demetriou 2012: 8 14. Lape 2010: 31 60. On Athenians or Greeks and the Other, see e.g. Lape 2010: 45 with note 161 for further references and examples.

17

18

Introduction

particularly in terms of understanding how these dynamics played out across the entire spectrum of Athenian society.

Approaching Sacrifices, Rituals and Community As with all other Greek festivals, the sacrifices to Athena were at the centre of the Panathenaia. In Greek thought, these actions performed a number of important functions. As presented by Hesiod in his story of Prometheus and the settlement at Mekone, and as explicated by Jean-Pierre Vernant and others, sacrifice establishes humans’ place in the world between the gods, whom they worship and to whom they give offerings, and (domesticated) animals, which they give to the divinities.75 When the meat is divided up, these relationships are made visible, because the bones covered in fat are given to the gods and burned for them, while the edible meat is reserved for humans.76 The distribution of this meat served to identify the members of the sacrificial community, because they, as participants, received portions of meat, while the non-member spectators did not.77 Consequently, the whole process of dividing up the meat and sharing it out created unity within the sacrificial community and erased divisions.78 Normative Greek sacrifice (thusia), consequently, played an important role in building human communities.79 In this way, it conforms to Anthony Cohen’s more general observation that ‘ritual confirms and strengthens social identity and people’s sense of social location: it is an important means through which people experience community’.80 Such sacrifices also served to link humans together with the divine. Both sacrifices and other offerings provided an opportunity for humans to remind the gods of their earlier gifts and to ask for benefits in return, as, 75

76 77

78

79

80

Hes. Theog. 535 57; Vernant 1981; Vernant 1989: 21 61, 73 5; Detienne 1989a: 7; Shear 2010: 142; Parker 2011: 132 3, 136 7, 140 2; cf. R. Osborne 2016: 247, who stresses the importance of sharing between gods and humans. On this passage, see also Stocking 2017: 27 69. Vernant 1981; Vernant 1989: 21 61, 73 5; Detienne 1989a: 7; Shear 2010: 142. Detienne 1989a: 3 4; Detienne 1989b: 131 2; Durand 1989: 104; Rudhardt 1992: 289 90, 296; Jameson 1998a: 178; R. Osborne 2000: 311 12; van Straten 2005: 21 2; Ekroth 2008: 259 60, 283; Shear 2010: 142 3; Parker 2011: 151 2; cf. Bruit Zaidman and Schmitt Pantel 1992: 34, 36. On the details of this process, see Ekroth 2008. Rudhardt 1992: 290, 296; Detienne 1989a: 14; Parker 2005: 37, 42 5; van Straten 2005: 21 3; Shear 2011: 152, 205, 288 90; cf. Sourvinou Inwood 2000a: 22; Naiden 2013: 118; Stocking 2017: 7, 14 15. For non normative sacrifices, see helpfully Parker 2011: 144 50, 153 70 with further references. In view of Naiden’s recent criticism of such approaches in his 2013 book, I should stress that sacrifices performed other functions as well. A. P. Cohen 1985: 50; see also the discussion below.

Sacrifices, Rituals and Community

for example, in Chryses’ prayer to Apollo at the beginning of the Iliad.81 When the benefits have been received, the humans must then thank the gods with further offerings, and so the cycle continues. On the divine side, gods can not accept the sacrifices and gifts, if they will not or cannot fulfil the request, as Athena’s refusal of the Trojan peplos in book 6 of the Iliad demonstrates.82 Sacrifices and other offerings, consequently, created reciprocal relationships between humans and the divine, and they further imposed additional obligations on both parties in the future.83 By establishing and maintaining relations between the gods and humans, the gifts also bridged the great gap between them.84 These processes work not only at the general level of humans and the divine, but also at the specific levels of both an individual human and a specific divinity, such as Chryses and Apollo, and a group of humans and a divinity, as, for example, the Trojan women and Athena. When sacrifices and other offerings are incorporated into the larger setting of a festival, they bring their dynamics with them, so that the whole occasion not only honours the particular divinity, but it also produces reciprocity between this divine figure and the community.85 If the celebration includes competitions, they, too, are an offering to the divinity, just as the sacrifices and other gifts are; they provide another way for giving pleasure or charis to the divine, and so they assure continued favour towards the worshipping community. In this way, festivals work on two levels to create relations between humans and the divine and also between different individuals and especially groups of humans. As Parker rightly points out, honouring the divinity and celebrating the polis are not mutually exclusive: the two goals exist at the same time.86 In studying the Panathenaia, consequently, we must attend to both of these aspects. When rituals and festivals are closely linked with the human sphere of the polis, as well as with the divine world, the city and its religion become closely intertwined in the relationship which Sourvinou-Inwood has explained through her model of polis religion. As we saw earlier, ritual is closely associated with the creation of identities in this system. These processes function not only at the level of the whole city, but also at the level of its subgroups, which are also ‘articulated and given identity through 81

82 83

84

Hom. Il. 1.37 52; Parker 1998: 106 7 with further examples. For a similar approach, apparently without reference to Parker, see Naiden 2013: 15 32. Hom. Il. 6.293 311; Parker 1998: 116 17 with note 39. Parker 1998: 105 18; Mikalson 2010: 14 15, 41 2; Patera 2012: 65 71, 73 9; cf. Ullucci 2011: 62 4; Blok 2017: 59 60. The Greek term charis encapsulates these reciprocities; Parker 2011: x. Parker 1998: 121 5; Naiden 2013: 323. 85 Shear 2010: 143. 86 Parker 2011: 201.

19

20

Introduction

cult’.87 On this model, creating and maintaining identities is precisely one of the roles of the Panathenaia, even though classical scholars have not determined how these processes actually worked. This paradigm of polis religion has been extremely influential, but more recently it has also aroused criticism.88 Although Sourvinou-Inwood’s discussion is cast in terms of the Greek polis, and the focus is on the archaic and especially the classical periods, scholars of Roman religion have criticised the model because the power of the polis to control religion is too great and it does not leave sufficient space for complexity, especially in the Roman imperial period, or for the individual.89 Scholars working on the Greek polis believe exactly the opposite: that this paradigm affords religion too much power over the city.90 More recently, scholars of Greek religion have criticised the model’s lack of emphasis on the individual, belief and the ‘messy margins’.91 There is also a noticeable tendency among this last group of critics to cast polis religion as an all-encompassing model and then to argue that it does not satisfactorily accommodate the particular case chosen for study. Despite the impression given by her critics, Sourvinou-Inwood did not intend her model to be an all-encompassing one which would provide a unified explanation of all of Greek religion, as Parker has rightly observed.92 Some of these scholars would evidently agree: both Greg Woolf and Jan Bremmer explicitly accept the validity of this paradigm, and Esther Eidinow states that her ‘network approach . . . builds on existing elements of . . . polis religion’.93 One of the primary objections to Sourvinou-Inwood’s model is that it does not seem to leave room for alternative voices, although critics have not framed the issue in quite this way. Using the cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton the tyrant-slayers as a case study, I have argued elsewhere that polis religion does, indeed, allow different views, in this case the narratives of various Athenian families about how Athens came to be democratic.94 In order to maintain the 87 88 89

90 91

92 93

94

Sourvinou Inwood 2000a: 27. Parker 2011: 57 8; Kindt 2012: 15 16; T. Harrison 2015: 166 8. E.g. Woolf 1997; Bendlin 2000; Rüpke 2011: 192 4; cf. Scheid 2005: 125 8; Parker 2011: 58; T. Harrison 2015: 167. Hansen and Nielsen 2004: 130 2; Mikalson 2016: 189 90, 241; cf. Parker 2011: 58. Bremmer 2010: 13 35; Eidinow 2011; Kindt 2012: 12 35; cf. T. Harrison 2015: 166, 167 8. The quotation is from Bremmer’s title. Parker 2011: 58; cf. Shear 2012c: 29 note 1; Kindt 2012: 5 6; T. Harrison 2015: 167. Woolf 1997: 72; Bremmer 2010: 33, 35; Eidinow 2011: 34; cf. Shear 2012c: 29 note 1. Sourvinou Inwood should not be held accountable for not anticipating how the study of the Greek world has developed since 1990, nor for not sharing her critics’ scholarly interests. Shear 2012c: 27 55.

Identities, Individuals and Communities

alternative version, however, the individuals promulgating it will have to work very hard to counteract the dominate voice of the polis, and they may not succeed, or not indefinitely.95 These different views may be those of a deme, a phratry (a hereditary descent group), a family, a cult group such as the Orphics, or even an individual. We also need to remember that individuals do not exist in isolation, but as social beings in society: we cannot have a religion of one person.96 Polis religion, consequently, remains a useful model for understanding the dynamics of religion in the city and especially its cults and festivals.97

Approaching Identities, Individuals and Communities Although Sourvinou-Inwood linked the religion of the polis closely with the creation of identities, she never discussed how these processes actually functioned. Like many scholars of the classical world, she seems to have believed that ‘more or less everyone knows more or less what [identity] means’ and how it functions.98 In fact, these dynamics are not intuitive, as scholarship on them in many areas of the social sciences has demonstrated.99 Since participation in the Panathenaia was not limited to Athenians, studies of ethnic identities, which are best known to scholars of 95

96

97

98 99

Indeed, polytheism, by its very nature, is inclusive, rather than exclusive, and easily accommodates multiplicity; cf. Kindt 2012: 24. Eidinow’s focus on networks nicely brings out the individual in society, but the concept is also fundamental to understanding how groups function; Eidinow 2011. For a helpful orientation to collectivities, see R. Jenkins 2002; for communities, see A. P. Cohen 1985. Indeed, none of Sourvinou Inwood’s critics have explained how we are to study festivals such as the Panathenaia without polis religion. They are no longer interested in such occasions, as Harrison’s review article brings out; T. Harrison 2015. In contrast, scholars of the Roman imperial period remain quite interested in such celebrations; see Graf 2015; Remijsen 2015a. Quotation: Lawler 2008: 1; Sigel 2001: 111. Some starting points include: R. Jenkins 2008; Lawler 2008; Cerulo 1997; Howard 2000; Eriksen 2010; S. Harrison 2006. Burke and Stets (2009) focus on the individual. For Social Identity Theory, see below note 101. Let the reader be warned, the topic is vast with multiple approaches from different disciplines. I am aware that ‘identity’ is a difficult word and, in popular opinion, subject to misunderstanding as singular and essential, but I remain unconvinced by the calls of Malešević and others that the term should be abandoned as not conceptually fit for purpose; Malešević 2002 and Malešević 2003, both with further references. Against this position, see the helpful discussion of R. Jenkins 2008: 1 15. For some scholars, identity is a feature of the modern, Western world; e.g. Malešević 2003: 271; Handler 1994; Owens, Robinson and Smith Lovin 2010: 493 4; Howard 2000: 367 8. Note, however, ‘cultural realities are always produced in specific sociohistorical contexts and . . . it is necessary to account for the processes that generate those contexts in order to account for the nature of . . . the practice of identity’; Friedman 1992: 837; see also R. Jenkins 2008: 28 36; Eisenstadt 2002; S. Hall 1996: 4; Calhoun 1994a: 9.

21

22

Introduction

the classical world, are not particularly helpful for understanding the festival and its intersections with identities.100 Instead, we need to look at discussions of how social and national identities are created, used and maintained.101 Identities operate both at the level of the individual and at the level of the group, and these two types are often seen as quite different.102 In fact, as Richard Jenkins has stressed, both types of identity work in similar ways, and our understanding of them must accommodate both the individual and the collective.103 These two types of identity are entangled with each other, and they both come into being through processes of interaction.104 Identity, consequently, is not a thing, but a process, and it must be understood as such.105 These interactions take place within the society, so that identities are ‘produced between persons and within social relations’ and are ‘socially produced, socially embedded and worked out in people’s everyday social lives’.106 These identities are, therefore, subject to change, and they must be constantly (re)negotiated, while conforming to social rules.107 They are also situationally specific, so that both 100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

Ethnic identities and classical world: e.g. J. M. Hall 1997: 17 33; Luraghi 2008: 6 13; Demetriou 2012: 8 14; Vlassopoulos 2015. Under the heading of social identities, I have in mind more than simply Social Identity Theory and the related and subsequent Self Categorisation Theory; for them, see e.g. R. Jenkins 2008: 112 17; Tajfel 1981; W. P. Robinson 1996; Abrams and Hogg 2004: 155 69; Hogg 2004; Reicher 2004; Turner and Reynolds 2004; Hogg 2006. The attractiveness of these two related approaches lies in their reliance on controlled laboratory experiments, although applying them to earlier periods requires us to assume that human cognition is fixed and has not changed; cf. Lape 2010: 52 note 191; see, however, the comments of Owens, Robinson and Smith Lovin 2010: 393 4. While these theories tend to operate in their own scholarly bubbles, they overlap with and complement other approaches to identity; R. Jenkins 2008: 116 17; Hogg, Terry and White 1995; cf. Owens, Robinson and Smith Lovin 2010: 487 9. R. Jenkins 2008: 37. Groups are, of course, not necessarily homogeneous, and contain sub groups; Hogg 2006: 117. R. Jenkins 2008: 37 8; cf. Owens, Robinson and Smith Lovin 2010: 494; Worchel and Coutant 2004: 197. R. Jenkins 2008: 37 8 and cf. 45; cf. Lawler 2008: 8; Calhoun 1994a: 28; S. Harrison 2006: 7, 8; Huddy 2001: 146; Worchel and Coutant 2002. Identity as process: see e.g. R. Jenkins 2008: 8, 38, 70, 93; Lawler 2008: 8, 17, 104 5; S. Hall 1996: 4; Grossberg 1996: 89; Calhoun 1994a: 27; Condor 1996: 290; Reicher 1996: 329; Gerson 2001: 181. If we wanted to describe the situation in terms more friendly to Classical Studies, we could understand these dynamics as taking up a position or taking on a role which is then put into practice, i.e. performed. Nevertheless, we still need a term for the results of putting the position/role into action: for these results, I use ‘identity’/‘identities’; on the problems of the term, see above note 99. Identity is, of course, performative; e.g. R. Jenkins 2008: 42. Quotations: Lawler 2008: 8. Throughout her book, Lawler particularly stresses the social nature of identity; see also e.g. R. Jenkins 2008: 17 18, 39 40; Calhoun 1994a: 24; Eriksen 2010: 16, 32, 73, 215; Reicher 1996: 329; Tajfel 1981: 255; Sigel 2001: 112; Reicher 2004: 250 2; cf. S. Hall, 1996: 4; S. Harrison 2006: 7; Gerson 2001: 180. Lawler 2008: 143; cf. Eriksen 2010: 3, 37 8.

Identities, Individuals and Communities

individuals and groups do not have a single identity, but multiple ones, which may be in tension with each other.108 Perikles, for example, had identities as father, son, husband, brother, uncle, guardian (of Alkibiades and his brother) and also as demesman, tribesman, general and athlothetes of the Panathenaia, but they were not all equally salient at the same time: when his sons were small, their friends would have thought of him as Xanthippos’ and Paralos’ father, not as general or athlothetes, while, for his soldiers, he was general and not father.109 Similarly, at Athens, a man from Miletos was not only a metic and non-citizen, but also a resident of the city, associated with a deme and so incorporated among the Athenians; his multiple statuses impacted both on who he was and on how he might take part in the Panathenaia: at some moments in the festival, he would even be one of ‘all the Athenians’, as we shall see. Identities are created through the identification of sameness and difference which allows individuals and groups to distinguish themselves from others. Similarity and difference only make sense in relation to each other, and both are necessary for creating identities; comparison and contrast are, therefore, important strategies in these processes.110 Individuals may stress difference to a greater extent, while groups may emphasise similarity more, but both factors are always in play.111 While I have used the terms ‘difference’ and ‘similarity’, some scholars prefer to use ‘Us’ and ‘Them’;112 we must remember, however, that they are not fixed categories, but socially constructed and subject to change. This emphasis on similarities and 108

109 110

111

112

Lawler 2008: 3; Calhoun 1994a: 27; Grossberg 1996: 89; Huddy 2001: 127; Reicher 2004: 244. For the multiplicity of identities, see also Hogg 2006: 115 16; Burke and Stets 2009: 3; Brewer 2001: 121 2. Identities may be oppositional and mutually exclusive, as e.g. man/woman and black/white, but they need not be; Lawler 2008: 3. Group membership is also situational; R. Jenkins 2002: 24. Despite the scholarship on identity formation, popular opinion maintains that individuals have only one single identity, as was forcefully advocated to me by one of the readers for the Press. At the end of the day, when this eminent scholar is in bed with his wife, I highly doubt that she addresses him as ‘professor’, just as, earlier in the day, when he was teaching his students, they did not address him as ‘darling’! He has, of course, additional identities in relationship to his parents, parents in law, siblings, children, nieces, nephews, professional and social friends, etc. As my example shows, different identities are associated with different forms of address, which cannot be used interchangeably. Athlothetes: Plut. Per. 13.11. The athlothetai put on the games at the Panathenaia. Similarity and difference: R. Jenkins 2008: 21 and cf. 18, 102, 105; cf. S. Harrison 2006: 12, 13, 38, 63; Eriksen 2010: 34; Tajfel 1981: 226; Ross 2001: 161. Comparison and contrast: R. Jenkins 2008: 17, 112 13; Sigel 2001: 112; Brewer 2001: 120; Tajfel 1981: 226; Eriksen 2010: 33 4; S. Harrison 2006: 7 8; cf. Barth 1969: 14; Reicher 1996: 326. R. Jenkins 2008: 38; cf. e.g. Hogg 2006: 122; Tajfel 1981: 258. Nevertheless, some scholars focus only on difference; e.g. Grossberg 1996: 89; S. Hall 1996: 4; Hogg 2004: 203. Compare S. Harrison 2006: 7 8; Barth 1969: 14; A. P. Cohen 1985: 12. Us vs Them: e.g. Hogg 2006: 115; S. Harrison 2006: 8; Eriksen 2010: 14, 23, 32; cf. A. P. Cohen 1985: 105, 113.

23

24

Introduction

differences makes boundaries particularly important as sites for negotiating exactly who and what does and does not fall into these groups. The role of boundaries in creating (ethnic) identity was particularly stressed by Fredrik Barth: boundaries are maintained through interactions across them by groups.113 These interactions at and across boundaries are inevitably social, and the processes create identities, which, like the boundaries themselves, are flexible, situational and negotiable.114 Barth focused particularly on ethnic identity, but his understanding of boundaries is an important approach to understanding social identity more generally, and particularly for groups.115 For us, the combination of boundaries and the processual nature of identity is particularly significant because it links to the importance of participation in the Panathenaia. Taking part differentially establishes different categories and makes them visible in the course of the festival. Since the opportunities for participation vary during the multi-day celebration, different identities are created and maintained. At the same time, participation enables the identities to be performed and so to become visible, while it also locates them in a specific time and place, in this case, the Panathenaia.116 With their multiple groups and events, the procession and the games are important moments for identity creation, and they also facilitate comparison and contrast both by participants and by spectators.117 Furthermore, taking part in the festival allows participants to practise their membership in the relevant group(s), so that they share a knowledge of what that membership entails.118 Boundaries play particularly important roles in the formation of group or collective identities. While ‘group identity is the product of collective internal definition’, how others categorise this group is also part of its reality, so that group identity does not exist in a vacuum.119 Since creating group identifications is processual, it has practical consequences.120 113

114

115

116 117

118 119

120

Barth 1969, especially 9 10, 15 16, 29 30; R. Jenkins 2008: 122; S. Harrison 2006: 8; A. P. Cohen 1985: 12, 109. Barth 1969: 10, 16, 22 6, 32 5; R. Jenkins 2008: 131; Eriksen 2010: 44 6; A. P. Cohen 1985: 12 13, 58, 109. For the link with Social Identity Theory, see Huddy 2001: 145. R. Jenkins 2008: 131; A. P. Cohen 1985: 12 14, 58, 109. On boundaries, see also Cerulo 1997: 394 5; Owens, Robinson and Smith Lovin 2010: 491. R. Jenkins 2008: 42, 48. Compare the dynamics of Men. fr. 384 (PCG). Note Ross’ emphasis on parades in Northern Ireland as occasions when in group solidarity is celebrated and differences are emphasised; Ross 2001: 158. R. Jenkins 2008: 17 18. R. Jenkins 2008: 105 (quotation with original emphasis), 106, 109; cf. Eriksen 2010: 14, 45, 73 4; S. Harrison 2006: 8; Tajfel 1981: 256; A. P. Cohen 1985: 109 11. R. Jenkins 2008: 111.

Identities, Individuals and Communities

Focusing on boundaries emphasises how difference works in creating group identities, but similarity also plays an important role in these processes, because groups inevitably focus on what members have in common.121 Their community is created by shared symbols, while shared rituals may ‘act for the community as symbols of the community’.122 Doing things together creates unity and allows shared symbols to develop; talking about these processes together, a ritual in itself, allows ‘symbolic value to be produced and reproduced’.123 It also creates narratives which allow identities to be promulgated in time and space.124 This symbolic construction of the community applies to the nation, and both groups are ‘imagined’.125 Furthermore, the ‘symbolisation of identity’ at the level of the group creates (an imagined) similarity which allows both ‘difference and heterogeneity’ to exist.126 Collective identities are also produced by a group’s institutions, which include events,127 such as the Panathenaia. In addition, public rituals, including processions, are important occasions which ‘organise, orchestrate and reaffirm collective identifications’.128 Their regular repetition enables the maintenance work so necessary for the production of group identities.129 Since public rituals, such as the Panathenaia, are performed, they make visible the ‘abstraction of collective identity’ and the ‘individual – whether participating as an individual or as “one of the crowd” – is included in the organised collectivity in the most potent fashion’.130 At the level of the group, these rituals articulate its relationship 121 122

123

124

125

126

127

128 129

A. P. Cohen 1985: 20 1, 109; R. Jenkins 2008: 132, 141; cf. S. Harrison 2006: 12, 13. R. Jenkins 2008: 135 6 (quotation with original emphasis); A. P. Cohen 1985: 50, 53, 54 5; cf. Burke and Stets 2009: 11. For communities and shared symbols, see A. P. Cohen 1985: 19, 21, 44, 98, 102 3, 114, 118. R. Jenkins 2008: 138 (quotation); A. P. Cohen 1985: 50, 109 and cf. 52 5. For the importance of language in creating identity, see e.g. Hogg 2006: 128; R. Jenkins 2008: 84, 143; Howard 2000: 371 3. Somers and Gibson 1994: 57 80; Lawler 2008: 10 30. Compare ‘identities are forged . . . in the context of on going relationships that exist in time, space and emplotment’; Somers and Gibson 1994: 66. As they stress, narratives allow us to examine how identities change over time. R. Jenkins 2008: 138 9; cf. A. P. Cohen 1985: 114. For the ‘imagined community’, see B. Anderson 2006 and especially 5 7 for a definition of the term. For its applicability to classical Athens, see Ober 1989: 31 3 and E. E. Cohen 2000: 3 4, 104 29, both with further references. R. Jenkins 2008: 143, 148, whence my quotations; A. P. Cohen 1985: 55 7, 59, 73 5, 95, 108 9, 111 12, 114. Compare also S. Harrison 2006: 6, 114 15. Heterogeneity: being composed of dissimilar parts, in this case members of the group. R. Jenkins 2008: 163 4. An institution ‘is a pattern of behaviour in any particular setting that has become established over time as “the way things are done” . . . people know and recognise it, if only in the normative specification of “how things are done”’; R. Jenkins 2008: 157. R. Jenkins 2008: 176 (quotation with original emphasis); A. P. Cohen 1985: 50. R. Jenkins 2008: 22. 130 R. Jenkins 2008: 177 (quotations); A. P. Cohen 1985: 54, 56.

25

26

Introduction

to other groups, while, at the level of the individual, they focus on the individual’s relationship to the group.131 These dynamics help us to understand why it was so important to participate in the Panathenaia, and they also bring out the connections between taking part and identity formation. Several other elements involved in the creation of identities are also important for understanding how these dynamics work in the context of the Panathenaia. The processes of creating identities for groups focus on exemplary individuals or prototypes, to use the term of Social Identity Theory. They are the ideal, often hypothetical, members of the group who provide the model for what members of the group should be and how they should act.132 Borrowing Anthony Cohen’s emphasis on symbolism, we may say that they are symbols of what it means to be part of the collectivity. In this way, they serve to unify the group by making visible what the group shares, and to bring out the differences between groups.133 Obviously, these exemplary individuals are context specific, and they may change if the context changes.134 In the case of the Panathenaia, these ideal members are disproportionately drawn from Athenians who were wealthy and from the city’s higher social strata, a situation which should not surprise us, because empirical observation shows that identity creation is very often the concern of elite and/or urban members of society.135 While individuals and groups may in some cases choose to create particular identities, they may also be externally imposed on them.136 Identities and their creation are, therefore, closely linked to issues of power.137 We can see how this plays out in the Panathenaia: the Athenians chose under what circumstances individuals might participate in the proceedings, and visitors from elsewhere had either to conform to these choices and to take part as specified, or to refuse to conform and so not be involved at all. These decisions, in turn, imposed particular identities, which had been selected by the Athenians, on the visitors. 131

132

133 135 136 137

A. P. Cohen 1985: 54, 56 7, 109, 115 16. Compare, identity is ‘simultaneously a theory of the way in which the world works and an analysis of the options and actions open to the subject given his or her position in it’; Reicher 1996: 329. Hogg 2006: 118 19, 121 2, 125; Huddy 2001: 133 4 and cf. 148 9; Hogg, Terry and White 1995: 261; Hogg 2004: 207 13, 215 17; cf. Eriksen 2010: 48; A. P. Cohen 1985: 115; R. Jenkins 2008: 144 7, 151 2; Calhoun 1994b: 316. Compare social anthropological discussions of the stereotype and note its function of defining group boundaries; Eriksen 2010: 28 31; A. P. Cohen 1985: 113 14. Hogg 2006: 124. 134 Hogg 2006: 118. S. Harrison 2006: 107, 118; Eriksen 2010: 122 3; cf. Huddy 2001: 135. Lawler 2008: 124; R. Jenkins 2008: 198 9. R. Jenkins 2008: 43 5, 95 9 and cf. 184 99; Eriksen 2010: 73; Grossberg 1996: 94; S. Hall 1996: 5; cf. Lawler 2008: 146. Hence the interests of elites in identity formation.

Evidence for the Panathenaia

Evidence for the Panathenaia These interpretative approaches provide a general framework for this project and, in conjunction with our evidence for the festival, they will allow us to understand the intersections between the Panathenaia and the identities created and maintained at it. Athena’s celebration is one of the best-attested ancient Greek festivals, and it is well known from literary and epigraphical sources and from the material and visual record. Interpreting this varied evidence is not necessarily easy. Most importantly, our sources often do not specify whether ‘the Panathenaia’ is the little or the great festival. In some instances, close attention to the date and context indicates which occasion the author had in mind. In other cases, the evidence is too general for certainty. Ignoring distinctions between the two versions of the festival does not allow us to ask whether the Little and the Great Panathenaia differed from each other and, if they did, what consequences these differences had for the creation of identities. In order to answer these questions, the evidence needs to be rigorously divided by occasion, and any sources not certainly connected with the annual festival should not be used to elucidate it. Doing so shows that the Little Panathenaia had a particularly Athenian focus and was clearly distinguished from the very international penteteric celebration. In order to elucidate the history of the festival, the testimonia must be dated as closely as possible. In many instances, particularly with the literary sources, providing well-dated information was not among the author’s priorities. The literary evidence either refers to a specific occasion before the source was written, or it reflects existing practices at the time of composition. In the former case, there always exists the possibility that aspects current in the author’s day may be intruding on to an earlier period; comparison with other evidence from the same period of the festival allows the identification of such anachronisms. Dates may also be ascertained by considering the relationships between sources which repeat the same information or draw on the same earlier works. Dating problems are particularly acute with the scholia and lexicographical works.138 These sources involve a special set of issues not present in the other literary testimonia and, particularly in the case of the scholia on Aristophanes’ comedies, they provide important evidence for the Panathenaia. The comments now found in the margins of our existing 138

For a helpful introduction to ancient scholarship and these sources, see Dickey 2007: 3 17 and note the discussion of the term ‘scholia’, 11 note 25.

27

28

Introduction

manuscripts and in the lexica contain a wide range of information, for which sources are frequently not cited. In such situations, the material must be assessed by comparison with other evidence for the festival. Since the information contained in these scholia and lexica is older than the sources in which it is embedded, it well repays the efforts to date it. The old scholia or scholia vetera on the Aristophanic plays are particularly important because their information dates no later than the Roman imperial period and often goes back to the Hellenistic era, although the form is of later and disputed date.139 They are generally of better quality than the scholia of many other authors and constitute an important source. Since all scholia contain a series of entries compiled from different sources, adjacent scholia need not be contemporary, and each one must be dated individually by its contents. The use of the present or the imperfect tense should provide a relative indication of chronology: the present ought to indicate that the information was current when it was written by the scholiast or his source, while the imperfect should show that it was out of date when the passage was composed.140 These rules also apply to the lexicographical sources, which may depend on the ancient commentaries and scholia, and to the Atthidographers who are frequently cited as the sources for later comments. The epigraphical testimonia involve a different set of issues. As documents, both public and private, the inscriptions are usually contemporary or near-contemporary witnesses of the events recorded. Discovered in excavated contexts, they are often damaged and thus require both restoration and interpretation. They must also be dated, a task often rendered more difficult by the partial preservation of the text and, therefore, for Athenian public documents, the loss of the names of the eponymous archon or other boards of officials. Prosopography, the style of the letters and the contents of the text may become important in such circumstances, but each inscription must be dated individually, and recourse cannot be made to sweeping generalisations.141 The visual and material record provides a third source of evidence for Athena’s festival. It falls into three distinct categories: the Panathenaic prize amphorae which are identified by label; reliefs on monuments celebrating victories in the games; and other representations both sculpted and painted on pots which are not connected to Panathenaia by explicit texts. The prize 139

140 141

Dickey 2007: 12 13, 28 9; Dunbar 1995: 37 42; cf. Dover 1993: 94 102. The scholia recentiora or recent scholia are products of Byzantine scholars; Dickey 2007: 15. For the principle, cf. Dover 1968: cxv. Such generalising rules have been a particular issue in dating inscriptions from the fifth century bc; for the complexities, see the helpful remarks of Rhodes 2008: 500 3.

Evidence for the Panathenaia

vases are particularly characteristic and easily identified by their imagery, an armed Athena between columns on the front and a contest or victors on the reverse, and black-figure style and by their label το͂ ν Ἀθένεθεν ἄθλον, ‘(one) of the prizes from Athens’, usually in the Attic alphabet, but sometimes in the Ionic on vessels made after 403/2 bc (Figs. 1.1–2). The label identifies them as official prizes in the games, and scholars generally assume that the competitions shown on the reverse were included in the games at which the amphora was presented.142 That this assumption is correct is suggested by some of the early prize vases which include extra labels specifying that they are for the men’s stadion, the single-length sprint: all the extant examples do, indeed, show the men’s sprint.143 Similarly, a fourth-century fragment with a graffito recording a victory in the four-horse chariot race preserves part of exactly this event, while fragments with a dedication for success in the men’s stadion or diaulos, the double-length sprint, show the men’s sprint.144 The vessels are generally closely datable, especially in the fourth century bc, when the labels include the archon-year marking the harvest of the oil and probably the manufacture of the pot. Since olives are harvested in the autumn and early winter,145 the amphora will have been awarded at the next Great Panathenaia after the archon-year in the label. 142

143

144

145

On the iconography, see Bentz 1998: 41 88 with much further bibliography. Pindar specifically describes the prizes from Athena’s games as oil in jars with richly decorated (παμποικίλοις) walls, while various lexicographical sources state that the victors received oil in amphorae; Pind. Nem. 10.35 37; Phot. Lex. and Suda s.v. Παναθήναια; schol. Pl. Prm. 127a; Apostol. 14.6; cf. schol. vet. Ar. Clouds 1005b. These sources together with the label, which firmly connects the jars with the games and identifies them as prizes, make it impossible to separate the vessels from this context and their function as containers of the oil given to victors, as Themelis and Eschbach wish to do; Themelis 2007: 25 7; Eschbach 2007: 94 5; contra: Johnston 2007: 101 3. The labels also make it impossible to disassociate these vessels from the amphorae listed in the early fourth century prize list SEG LIII 192, as Themelis and Tiverios also desire to do; Themelis 2007: 26 9; Tiverios 2007: 14 17. Competitions and games: e.g. Neils 1992b: 34; Kyle 1996: 119 20, 135 note 92; Tiverios 2007: 3 note 13; contra: Hamilton 1996: 139 43. For a full discussion of the issues, see Bentz 1998: 83 4. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1978.11.13: Bentz 1998: 6.007, pl. 5; Moore 1999: 42 3, figs. 7 8; Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek, Munich, 1451: Bentz 1998: 6.016, pl. 8; Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek, Munich, 9399: Bentz 1998: 6.017, pl. 10; see generally Bentz 1998: 83. Four horse chariot: Archaeological Museum, Thessalonike, 18151: Bentz 1998: 4.136, pl. 135; Tiverios 2001: 41 2, pl. 18.1 4. Men’s sprint: Archaeological Museum, Izmir, 48 188.1948: Bentz 1998: 4.356, pl. 136; see generally Bentz 1998: 83 4 and note the case of Nikagoras, which Bentz discusses in detail. These labels and graffiti are ignored by Hamilton, who bases his argument on the numbers of preserved vessels without noting that his statistics are affected by issues of preservation and are not large enough to be statistically valid; Hamilton 1996: 139 43. On olive cultivation and harvesting, see Shear 2003b: 96 and Foxhall 2007: 7 9, 126 8, both with further references.

29

30

Introduction

Figure 1.6 Panathenaic amphora attributed to the Robinson Group, c. 430 bc: detail of the boys’ wrestling match (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, IN 3606). These fifth century boys are depicted as significantly smaller than the adult male who watches them.

When the prize vases show athletic competitions, the difficulty is to identify for which class, men, beardless youths, or boys, they were awarded, especially when the remains are fragmentary.146 In the sixth and fifth centuries, men are always shown with beards (Fig. 1.2).147 In contrast, both beardless youths and boys are not, but distinguishing between these two classes is not always easy. Boys are usually significantly smaller than adult judges or spectators (Fig. 1.6), while youths are larger than boys and unbearded; they may be as tall or as developed as men (Fig. 1.7).148 At the beginning of the fourth century, adult contestants start being shown 146

147

148

Distinguish between vessels awarded to victors rather than second place finishers, as Themelis believes he can do, is even more difficult; Themelis 2007: 28 9. If the class cannot be identified, then the jars are usually not helpful for our purposes. E.g. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 16.71: Bentz 1998: 5.009, pl. 45; private collection, New York, L 1982.102.3: Bentz 1998: 5.079, pl. 68. Boys: e.g. Museo Civico Archeologico, Bologna, 18039: Bentz 1998: 5.163, pl. 75; Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, MA, 1959.128: Bentz 1998: 5.175, pl. 80. Youths: e.g. National Museum, Athens, 451: Bentz 1998: 5.198, pl. 87; Martin Luther Universität, Halle, 560: Bentz 1998: 6.002, pl. 3; Musée du Louvre, Paris, F 278: Bentz 1998: 6.088, pl. 30. Despite these observable differences, Bentz does not believe that we can distinguish between the two age classes on the prize vases; Bentz 1998: 62.

Evidence for the Panathenaia

Figure 1.7 Panathenaic amphora attributed to the Kuban Group, c. 410 400 bc: detail of pentathletes in the class of beardless youths (National Museum, Copenhagen, 13812). These fifth century beardless youths are shown with well developed bodies and as tall as the adult male in the scene.

without beards; the difficulty is to distinguish between men and beardless youths, because boys remained significantly smaller than the adults in the image. The development of the musculature does not identify the two classes, but height does: men are as tall as other adults in the scene, but youths are shorter, although sometimes only slightly so (Fig. 1.8).149 Since beardless youths are difficult to identify, particularly in the fourth century, some representations may have been assigned in Chapter 5 to the men’s class. Contests for youths are well attested in this period because of the preservation of a list of prizes awarded in the games (SEG LIII 192), and thus our understanding of the history of the games in the archaic and classical periods should not be hindered by the difficulties in identifying the classes of participants. In the subsequent Hellenistic period, prize amphorae continued to be awarded to victors in the athletic and hippic 149

Compare National Museum, Athens, 20045: Bentz 1998: 4.051, pl. 112 (youths) and National Museum, Athens, 20044: Bentz 1998: 4.050, pl. 112 (men). On Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, MA, 1925.30.124: Bentz 1998: 4.081, pl. 120, the youths are the same height as the personified Olympias, but shorter than the adult judge. Against this view: Bentz 1998: 62.

31

32

Introduction

Figure 1.8 Panathenaic amphora, 340/39 bc: detail of boxers in the class of beardless youths (Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, MA, 1925.30.124). These fourth century beardless youths are depicted as just as tall as the personified Olympias on the left.

competitions.150 In a white-ground version, they were given to successful contestants in the musical games.151 Fragments of a small number of blackfigure prize vessels are known from the Roman period, with the latest example apparently dating to the last years of the festival’s history.152 150

151

152

G. R. Edwards 1957; Tsouklidou 2001: 33 40; Eschbach 2017: 57 65, 241 64, nos. 3.001 3.018, 2.001 2.058, 1.001 1.010; Valavanis 2007b: 11 13, nos. KK 2 6, pl. 1. For another fragmentary example from the second half of the first century bc, see Tsouklidou 2008: 449 57. Since IG II2 1043 is now dated to 36/5, the festival honouring Antony in lines 22 4 and held at least in part on 17 Anthesterion cannot be the Great Panathenaia of 38 bc; Byrne 2003: 521. It must be restored as the Pana[thenaic] Antonieia, i.e. the festival was modelled on the (Great) Panathenaia, and it cannot be used to date the Panathenaic amphora Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 20817, as Tsouklidou wishes to do. G. R. Edwards 1957: 327 8, 345 7 nos. 40 9; Tsouklidou 2007: 109 16; Eschbach 2017: 242 3, 258 9, 261 3, nos. 3.007, 2.054 2.058, 1.002. For another example, see Tsouklidou 2003: 383 95. The subject of the reverse is unclear, and I am rather less certain than Tsouklidou that it depicted a dramatic contest. If so, then it marks the first Panathenaic amphora known to have been awarded in a team event. G. R. Edwards 1957: 322 3, 339 40 nos. 12 13, 342 3 nos. 24 5; Frel 1973: 32.

The Panathenaia and Athenian Identities

Like the prize vases, reliefs on monuments set up to commemorate victories in the games are identified by their texts, and so their connection with the Panathenaia is certain. Since these structures celebrated success in a particular festival, they must have been erected after the event took place, and so they must be at least slightly later in date. In the Roman period, bases for honorary statues of victors often summarise their careers to date and were not infrequently erected some years after the earliest victories were won. In contrast, other visual images, both on vases and in sculpture, are not linked to the celebration by explicit textual references and, therefore, they must be used with care. In some cases, the combination of the content of the image and information in our testimonia makes the connection either certain or highly likely. Perhaps the most important such monument is the Parthenon frieze, as we shall see in Appendix 2. When events in the games are known to have been limited to the Panathenaia, such as the pyrrhiche or dance in arms, the apobatic race, in which armed contestants jumped on and off moving four-horse chariots, and the javelin-throw on horseback, then we can draw on images of these events. Otherwise, such images cannot be used unless the visual iconography links to the festival either through the presence of the armed Panathenaic Athena or through the inclusion of prize amphorae in the scene. Generic athletic, hippic and musical scenes, consequently, must be left out of the discussion. The black-figure neck amphorae which imitate the decoration of the prize vases and so are known to specialists as pseudo-Panathenaic amphorae appear to be connected to the celebration in some way which is now not clear. Consequently, their evidence is very difficult to assess: they will only be used to elucidate the early history of the musical contests. Since all these pots and sculpted images were inspired by the festival, the events which they depict must have been part of the Panathenaia when they were manufactured.

The Panathenaia and Athenian Identities Together, these classes of evidence and these approaches to sacrifices, rituals, communities and identities form the basis for examining both who participated when in the Panathenaia and how the festival worked to create and maintain identities both at the level of the individual and the group. We shall also ask how the identity politics of the Little Panathenaia compare with those of the penteteric festival. Since no comprehensive monograph on the celebration exists, we shall have to examine a number of subjects, particularly the occasion’s foundation stories and aspects of

33

34

Introduction

how the festival changed and developed over time, which we might expect in such a study, but writing the history of the Panathenaia is not the primary goal of this project. As we shall see, the festivities celebrated the gods’ victory over the Giants, so that it was a victory celebration. This victory theme together with several other stories linked the different parts of the occasion together, so that the Panathenaia formed a unified whole over the time of the festival and the space of the city; these accounts were also involved in the celebration’s identity politics. Since the purpose of the affair was to honour the goddess Athena and to (re)create and maintain reciprocal relations with her, the procession and especially the sacrifices were the most important moments in the celebration. As I shall argue, taking part in these two elements of the Panathenaia established an individual as a member of the worshipping community of ‘all the Athenians’, as did participation in some, but not all, of the competitions in the games of the Great Panathenaia. These actions also created identities at the level of individuals, who were identified by role, and at the level of subgroups of the city. Since the stories connected with the Panathenaia explained why the celebration was being held, who its founders were and why certain events were so prominent in it, our discussion must start with these narratives (Chapter 2). As I shall argue, the festivities commemorated the gods’ victory over the Giants and Athena’s role in that battle. Our visual evidence indicates that this aetiology was introduced in 566, when the existing celebration was reorganised to form the Little and the Great Panathenaia. For Athenians, the invention of the pyrrhiche was understood as part of the aftermath of the battle: Athena first performed it to celebrate the gods’ military success. These stories also identified two founders of the Panathenaia: Erichthonios, the autochthonous foster son of Athena, and Theseus, the quintessential early king whose unification of the peoples of Attica was associated with the ‘all-Athenian’ festivities.153 Erichthonios, either by himself or in association with Athena, invented the apobatic race, the signature event of the games; this story also seems to be at least as old as the reorganisation in 566. One final narrative explained why the cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton was added to the festival at the end of the sixth century, a time of significant change, as we shall see repeatedly in other areas. Since these rituals presented the two men as the slayers of the tyrant and the bringers of democracy, this story also served to link this 153

As we shall see in Chapter 2, in the Panathenaic narratives, Erichthonios is clearly distinguished from Erechtheus.

The Panathenaia and Athenian Identities

particular celebration especially closely to the rule of the demos. After the end of the sixth century, the event could never simply be focused on the glorification of the Athenians and the city, as the name might otherwise have implied. Collectively, these stories unified the festival. They also marked certain themes as important, and thus they appeared repeatedly. In order to understand the how the identity politics of the Little Panathenaia compare with those of the penteteric celebration, we must focus on it as an occasion distinct from the Great Panathenaia. As we shall see in Chapter 3, the Little Panathenaia is best attested in the 330s and 320s bc and again in the late second century bc. It was a much less complicated affair, centred on the sacrifices to Athena in her sanctuary on the Akropolis. In at least the late fifth and fourth centuries bc, it included a very limited set of competitions which were restricted to Athenians. It was elaborated in the late second century bc, when a peplos began to be offered to the goddess on an annual basis. Concentrating closely on the Little Panathenaia shows that the annual festivities focused on the local inhabitants and did not include visitors and participants from beyond Athens and Attica. Consequently, the identities created on this occasion concerned individuals’ positions within the city, as, for example, Athenian men or Athenian girls, and the identities of different subgroups of the city, such as the demes and also the gene or hereditary descent groups. Taking part in these festivities allowed individuals to display their memberships not only in these various different subgroups, but also in the community of ‘all the Athenians’ which was worshipping the goddess. From the Little Panathenaia, we shall turn to the international and much more elaborate Great Panathenaia. Examining first the procession, the sacrifices and the gifts for the goddess (Chapter 4) and then the games (Chapter 5), we shall look at how different individuals participated in these various elements of the penteteric festival. We shall see considerable variation and change over the course of the event’s history. Only certain individuals and groups could march in the procession, offer sacrifices and other gifts to the goddess and receive meat from the victims. Participating in this way identified them as members of the community of ‘all the Athenians’, and it created reciprocal relations between them and the goddess. In the games, only some contests were open to all participants, because a significant group of events was limited to Athenian males, who represented their tribes. The military themes of the festival were particularly evident in the games, but, with the exception of the race in armour, only Athenian males could take part in the martial events. Since they competed on behalf of their tribes, the games provided them with an

35

36

Introduction

opportunity to demonstrate not only their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’, but also their status as Athenian citizens or, in the case of the boys, as citizens-to-be. As these two chapters bring out, participating in the Great Panathenaia created a series of ideal roles for individuals and, collectively, these roles formed the ideal community of ‘all the Athenians’. Since fulfilling these ideal roles created identities, we shall then ask how individuals constructed identities by participating in the Great Panathenaia (Chapters 6–7). As we shall see, three overall groups were involved: Athenian men (Chapter 6), other Athenian residents (Chapter 7) and nonresidents (Chapter 7). Identities were also created for Athenian subgroups, the gene, the demes and the tribes (Chapters 6 and 7). As I shall argue, Athenian male identities were particularly complex, and required repeated participation. Men were identified as active on behalf of the city both in war and in peace, as servants of the goddess and as members of various subgroups of the city. Depending on exactly how an individual man participated, different aspects of this overall identity became salient at different points in the festival. This overall identity mapped quite closely on to men’s roles as citizens, as those ruling and being ruled in turn;154 this connection was particularly visible in the games during the classical and Hellenistic periods. Through this association, the overall Athenian male identity was particularly sensitive to political change in the city, and it quickly reflected changes in other areas of the city’s life. In contrast, the identities of the other Athenian residents and of nonresidents were considerably less complex (Chapter 7). The other residents included a range of different people inhabiting the city: Athenian women and girls, metics and their daughters and Athenian boys, beardless youths and ephebes. For Athenian women and girls and metics and their daughters, their identities were as servants of the goddess. They served the city only indirectly, in that their actions helped to create and maintain reciprocal relations with the goddess. In contrast, Athenian boys, beardless youths and ephebes had identities as citizens-to-be or the newest citizens who were prepared to fight for the city, and they did not act as servants of the goddess. For the young people, both Athenian and metic, their identities also included an element of preparation for their roles as fully grown-up members of the community. The identities of non-residents were also not complex. Colonies and allies of the city created identities as servants 154

Arist. Pol. 1277b13 16. This definition is what we might call the hard or political definition of a citizen; i.e. citizens are only those men who can take part in the government of the city.

The Panathenaia and Athenian Identities

of the goddess; after about 229, so did other cities, which now sent delegations with sacrifices. In contrast, foreign benefactors served the city rather than the goddess. Since all the identities of non-residents were fixed and circumscribed, these participants either accepted the identities imposed by the Athenians and took part in the festival or they rejected them and had no role in the proceedings. When all these different individuals and groups of residents and non-residents took part in the Great Panathenaia, they demonstrated their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’, which was celebrating the festivities, and their activities served to constitute this group (Chapter 7). The composition of the group did not remain stable over the course of the penteteric celebration, so how individuals took part visibly determined their ranking within the worshipping community and how they related to this overall group. These dynamics, in turn, affected the identities of both the community and the individuals. The Panathenaia in all the forms in which it was celebrated over more than 950 years, consequently, was an extremely complex affair which involved not just the city collectively, but also individuals who took part and so made the occasion happen. In this way, the Panathenaia also provides us with a lens for thinking about Sourvinou-Inwood’s model of polis religion. As Athena’s celebration shows, this paradigm can, indeed, include the individual, as well as the collective, and also individuals and groups from beyond the sponsoring city. At the same time, the festival brings out the under-theorised understanding of identity processes in the model of polis religion. As we shall see, the Little Panathenaia created different identities than the penteteric celebration, and these identities differed from those created in other festivities in the city. The link between polis religion and identity is much more complex than Sourvinou-Inwood imagined, and we need to take this complexity into account when we use her model. Since the Panathenaia was embedded in the life of the city in the broadest sense, it also provides us with a lens for thinking about the fundamental connections between ritual and religion, on the one hand, and politics, in the hard sense, on the other. It brings out the ways in which politics influences other spheres of activity and how other media reflect back on to the realm of the political. In this way, we can see how public culture responds to changing political conditions. In the case of the Panathenaia, these linkages were especially close, as we shall see, and the festival reacted quickly to these changes, in part because of its position as one of the most important celebrations in the city. These festivities were particularly affected by the adoption of the Kleisthenic democracy, and

37

38

Introduction

they were very closely tied to the rule of the demos. They were, consequently, an important venue for individuals to participate in public life in this political system. Celebrating the Panathenaia, consequently, was not limited to worshipping Athena, because the human participants also celebrated themselves and the city, in which the proceedings were firmly embedded. In so doing, they constituted themselves as the goddess’ own special community, ‘all the Athenians’ come to do her honour.

2

Giants and Heroes: The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

When the Athenians came together to honour Athena at the Panathenaia, their actions created and maintained their reciprocal relationships with the goddess. The reasons for celebrating the festival, however, were not so simple, as the stories firmly associated with the occasion make clear. They elucidated the purposes(s) for holding the celebration and they identified its multiple founders. Other stories presented certain contests as particularly characteristic of the Panathenaia through their special connections with the goddess. Yet another narrative focused on the reason for adding a new cult to the occasion at the end of the sixth century bc. The multiplicity of stories connected with the celebration is striking, and it forces us to consider the roles of such myths in a (polytheistic) world full of gods. As we shall see, these stories collectively focus on the gods’ victory over the Giants as the reason for the festivities and, through the two founders, Erichthonios and Theseus, on issues of autochthony and belonging. Running through these narratives is a clear martial theme, as well as an emphasis on connections between the inhabitants, the polis and the goddess. Together, all these different stories created contexts for the events and explained why they were happening; they also provided important opportunities for creating identities. Modern scholars, however, have not focused on these narratives as a group, and they have generally understood the Panathenaia rather differently. For Walter Burkert, it marked the start of the new year, while Noel Robertson thought that it celebrated the bringing of new fire for the new year.1 Many other scholars have identified the festival as marking the birthday of Athena, even though there is no ancient evidence for this explanation.2 In contrast, as early as 1952, Francis Vian pointed out that the 1 2

Burkert 1983: 154 8; Robertson 1985: 240 1, 258 81; Ceccarelli 1998: 218. E.g. Deubner 1932: 23; Parke 1977: 33; Simon 1983: 55; Neils 1992a: 14 15; Wohl 1996: 25; G. Nagy 2002: 88; Connelly 2007: 280; cf. Loraux 1993: 48; G. Anderson 2003: 172; Deacy 2007: 230; Wachsmann 2012: 237; Anghelina 2017 (who misreads the Greek texts). I have traced this notion back to the late nineteenth century ad, but no further; Preller and Robert 1894: 212 and note 2; Schmidt 1908: 98 101; Deubner 1932: 23 and note 10. Mommsen’s arguments against the

39

40

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

celebration was connected with the divine battle against the Giants and not with the anniversary of Athena’s birth, but scholars have only very recently begun to take this interpretation seriously.3 Faced with such a variety of explanations and understandings, one commentator went so far as to describe the Panathenaia as ‘a complex, multifaceted occasion, made up of several distinct, if not entirely unrelated, ingredients’.4 Scholars have also found complications with the multiple founders. The problem has been not so much that they are multiple as it has been to establish the relationship of Erichthonios to the similarly named Erechtheus: for most scholars, these two figures were, in fact, the same individual, and only at some later stage did he split into two separate entities; alternatively, they were really just the same and the names could be used interchangeably.5 Throughout these studies there is a very strong tendency to assume that only one story is correct, and that multiplicity is a sign of confusion and therefore negative. In fact, a polytheistic system, by its very nature, can easily accommodate multiple stories and explanations, as, for example, Herakles, Pelops and the various other founders of the festival and games at Olympia make very clear.6 Close attention to our sources, both written and visual, shows that the situation was not actually nearly as murky and as insurmountable as the scholarship suggests. The Panathenaia had a very clear complex of stories to explain it and its history. They connected the occasion with the gods’ victory over the Giants, a focus which made the festival into a victory celebration commemorating this event in the deep past. Martial elements reappeared in stories about the pyrrhiche and the apobatic race, both of

3

4 5

6

connection between the festival and the goddess’ birthday were ignored by subsequent scholars; A. Mommsen 1898: 158; cf. Parker 2005: 256. Stewart’s recent identification of the birth of Athena as the theme of the Hephaisteion’s east pediment renders this theory even less likely, because this subject can no longer be associated only with the Akropolis; Stewart 2018: 721 3. Other explanations for the festival are summarised by Robertson 1985: 232 9, to which add Brandt 2001: 107 and Brandt 2012: 164 (initiation of ephebes). Vian 1952: 246 59; followed by Pinney 1988: 471 4; cf. Loraux 1993: 46. Recently, this association has been rightly advocated by Parker and Sourvinou Inwood; Parker 2005: 254 6; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 271 80. G. Anderson 2003: 159. Most recently Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 25, 51 111; Meyer 2017: 313 17, 349 51, 362 77, 416 19. See also e.g. Kearns 1989: 110 15, 160 1; Mikalson 1976; Kron 1976: 37 9; Brulé 1996: 44 6; d’Ayala Valva 1996: 8 9; Kron 1988; Brandt 2001: 109; Sonnino 2010: 59 63; Neils and Schultz 2012: 201 2; Wachsmann 2012: 238; Fowler 2013: 458; Blok 2017: 141 2; cf. Vian 1952: 254 5. E.g. Pind. Ol. 1.88 96; 6.64 70; 10.24 30, 43 50, 55 9; Paus. 5.4.5, 7.6 8.5; Burkert 1983: 95 9. For a similar multiplicity, compare the seven different explanations which Pausanias gives for the Taraxippos, the point in the hippodrome at Olympia where horses regularly panicked; Paus. 6.20.15 19.

The Gigantomachy and the Festival

which involved armed contestants. This repeated theme made Athena’s festival into a unified occasion and related its different parts together. Identifying the earth-born Erichthonios as the original founder of the celebration put an emphasis both on his relationship to the land of Attica itself and to the goddess, his divine foster mother. Theseus’ role as founder, in contrast, focused on the unity of the city’s inhabitants, while adding the cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, the two men identified by Athenians as the slayers of the tyrant and the bringers of democracy, concentrated on the rule of the demos. In this way, the festival’s stories brought out the importance of autochthony, of democracy and of what being an Athenian entailed; what narrative was told at what moment depended in part on what aspect was being emphasised. Collectively, these stories also marked the Panathenaia as the most important occasion for working out and displaying Athenian identities.

The Gigantomachy and the Festival The connection between the Gigantomachy and the Panathenaia is reported by sources representing two separate traditions, while the association between Athena, the battle and her festival is reinforced by the decoration on the peplos given to the goddess. In the visual realm, the conflict is especially linked with the Akropolis, Athena’s sanctuary and the setting of the most important events of the Panathenaia. In the visual realm, representations of the battle first appear in Athens in the second quarter of the sixth century bc, at just the same time as the institution of the penteteric celebration, and thus it seems likely that the connection was first made at this time. The earliest written attestation comes from a fragment of the Peplos ascribed to Aristotle. There, in a list of the oldest games, the author reports ‘first is the Eleusinia on account of the fruit of Demeter; then second is the Panathenaia for (ἐπί) Aster the Giant who was destroyed by Athena’.7 Similar information is provided by the scholia on Aelius Aristeides’ Panathenaikos in the section shortly after the quotation from Aristotle’s work. Here we are told that the little festival was held in Erichthonios’ reign, because of the murder (ἐπὶ τῷ φόνῳ) of Asterios the 7

Arist. Pepl. fr. 637 (Rose); quoted by the schol. Aristeid. Or. 1.362 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 323 Jebb 189, 4. On the textual problems of this passage, see the apparatus criticus in Rose’s edition; Vian 1952: 262; Borthwick 1970: 322 note 3. For the Peplos and its problems, see Gutzwiller 2010 with further references.

41

42

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

Giant.8 Despite the difference in the precise name of the Giant, these two versions are very close, and they should reflect the same tradition.9 A separate account appears in the scholia on Aristophanes’ Knights, which report that, on the peplos, was shown ‘Enkelados, whom Athena destroyed; and he was one of the Giants. Consequently, the peplos was prepared each year and it was conducted in the procession at the Panathenaia.’10 Since the destruction of the Giant is given here as the direct cause for the annual manufacture of the robe for Athena, the author of the passage very probably connected the reason for celebrating the festival with the gods’ battle against the Giants. This alternative name for Athena’s opponent ought to indicate that our information stems from a different tradition from the one on which Aristotle drew. In Athenian vase painting, Aster or Asterios is never depicted, but, as early as the second quarter of the sixth century bc, Athena is shown fighting Enkelados, who also appears in Euripides’ plays as her opponent.11 The scholion on the Knights ought to reflect this second and older version, although the reference to the annual peplos indicates that it must have been composed no earlier than the second half of the second century, when the robe started being presented to the goddess every year.12 The Gigantomachy and the Panathenaia were further associated through the decoration of the peplos for the goddess, as the scholion on Knights noted. By about 400 bc, this connection appears in our literary sources, and it is repeated in a variety of sources dating to various later periods.13 In the late fifth century, consequently, the peplos was already 8 9 10 11

12

13

Schol. Aristeid. Or. 1.362 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 323 Jebb 189, 4. Compare Borthwick 1970: 322; Vian 1952: 262 4; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 273. Schol. Ar. Knights 566a (II); repeated by Suda s.v. πέπλος. Vase painting: Musée du Louvre, Paris, E 732: Vian 1951: no. 96, pl. 22; Vian 1988: no. 170. Both Athena and Enkelados are labelled. For a list of representations of Enkelados, who fights only Athena, in the Gigantomachy, see Vian 1988: 269. Literary accounts: Eur. Ion 206 11; HF 908; cf. Eur. Kyk. 5 8. The absence of Aster or Asterios as one of Athena’s known opponents is not discussed by Sourvinou Inwood, who also ignores the version about Enkelados; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 272 6. See below Chapter 3. Parker and especially Sourvinou Inwood devote much space to discussing how Athenians might have understood the chronological sequence here and when precisely they thought the divine battle took place; Parker 2005: 255 6; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 276 80. Such a long, coherent narrative, however, almost certainly had no place in the festival and its stories, which will have focused only on those aspects relevant to the matter at hand. Stratt. fr. 73 (PCG) and repeated by the schol. vet. Eur. Hec. 467 (Schwartz); Pl. Euthphr. 6b7 c4. Later sources: Origen, C. Cels. 6.42; Prokl. In Ti. 1.26e 27a; In Prm. 1.643; schol. Pl. Resp. 1.327a; schol. Aristeid. Or. 1.404 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 342 3 Jebb 197, 8; schol. vet. Eur. Hec. 468, 472 (Schwartz); [Verg.] Ciris 21 35. Probably both Euripides, Hecuba 466 73 and Iphigeneia in Tauris 221 4 also refer to the peplos, but the poet has substituted the Titans for the Giants. Certainly, the scholiast on the Hecuba thought that the two battles were confused, and

The Gigantomachy and the Festival

being decorated with the Gigantomachy, and so this battle was prominently and regularly linked with Athena’s festival. This context suggests that, by now, the Athenians understood the gods’ victory over the Giants as the reason for the celebration. This association is further reinforced by the settings of the Gigantomachy in the monumental realm: in the archaic and classical periods, all known examples in Athens belong on the Akropolis, the location of the sacrifices to Athena at the Panathenaia.14 Further evidence for the Athenians’ engagement with this battle comes from Attic vase painting. The battle first appeared quite suddenly on Athenian pots during the second quarter of the sixth century bc, at just about the time of the institution of the Great Panathenaia.15 Some of the earliest examples are dated to the decade between 560 and 550 and were found on the Akropolis. The fragments of three of these vases preserve parts of their dedicatory inscriptions, and so they were certainly offerings to the goddess; other contemporary vessels showed the battle, but they do not have such inscriptions.16 As soon as the theme was introduced,

14

15 16

modern scholars have generally followed this lead; schol. vet. Eur. Hec. 472 (Schwartz); Vian 1952: 173; Collard 1991: 154 5; Gregory 1999: 101 2; Matthiessen 2008: 131; Kyriakou 2006: 105; Stamatopoulou 2012: 73 note 7; cf. Cropp 2000: 190. In contrast, Stamatopoulou argues that, for his own dramatic purposes, Euripides has deliberately substituted the Titans for the Giants; Stamatopoulou 2012. Her argument will only work, however, if Athenians immediately associated Athena’s peplos and the Gigantomachy. These two passages, accordingly, indicate that the decoration was already in use in the 420s. Shear 2012b: 114. Monuments: pediment of the so called Old Athena Temple: Hurwit 1999: 123, figs. 96 7; Vian 1988: no. 7; marble Gigantomachy, perhaps from a pediment (c. 500 bc): Akropolis Museum, Athens, 141, 293, 658 + inventory 162, 424b: Schrader 1939: 288 90, no. 413, figs. 332 4, pls. 161 2; Vian 1951: no. 23; Vian 1988: no. 8; east metopes of the Parthenon: Hurwit 1999: 170 1, fig. 137; Vian 1988: no. 18; interior of the shield of the gold and ivory statue by Pheidias: Plin. HN 36.18; pediment of the Nike Temple: Vian 1988: no. 20; marble relief (c. 490 bc): Akropolis Museum, Athens, 120: Schrader 1939: 302 4, no. 423, fig. 349a, pl. 174; Vian 1951: no. 24; Brouskari 1974: 129, fig. 247; Vian 1988: no. 10. A second marble relief made at the end of the sixth century may once have shown an excerpt from the Gigantomachy, but, since only part of Athena is preserved, we cannot be certain; Akropolis Museum, Athens, 121: Schrader 1939: 305 6, no. 425, fig. 350; Vian 1951: no. 26; Brouskari 1974: 75, fig. 142; Vian 1988: no. 9. In Attica, the Gigantomachy was used for a frieze in the pronaos of the Temple of Poseidon at Sounion: Vian 1988: no. 17. Vian 1952: 246; Pinney 1988: 473; Vian 1988: 251; Carpenter 1991: 74. Inscribed: National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 2211: Vian 1951: no. 104, pl. 23; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 94; Vian 1988: no. 104; National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 2134 ABV 347: Addenda2 94; Vian 1951: no. 106, pl. 25; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 94; Vian 1988: no. 106; National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 607 ABV 107, 1: Addenda2 29; Vian 1951: no. 105, pl. 24; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pls. 33 5; Moore 1979, ill. 1 2; Vian 1988: no. 105. Other examples: National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 612 ABV 83, 3: Addenda2 23; Vian 1951: no. 107, pl. 25; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 36; Vian 1988: no. 174; National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 648 ABV 137, 68: Vian 1951: no. 108; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 43; Vian 1988: no. 108.

43

44

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

consequently, it was understood as particularly appropriate decoration for a gift presented to Athena in her sanctuary on the Akropolis. Vases decorated with the Gigantomachy continued to be brought up to the Akropolis in the second half of the century.17 The battle was also used on at least three terracotta plaques dating to the period between 525 and 500.18 Collectively, this evidence shows that the Gigantomachy had a very particular set of associations in Athens already in the sixth and fifth centuries bc: it was connected with Athena, her sanctuary on the Akropolis, her peploi offered to her there and so also her festival in that particular place. Our literary sources explicitly identify the battle as the reason for holding the Panathenaia, and they provide no other explanation for it. The sudden appearance of the battle in the visual realm needs explanation, because such subjects do not appear and quickly become prominent for no reason. Its use on Akropolis dedications of the 550s points towards a connection with the festival by this time and suggests that the new imagery should be associated with the institution of the Great Panathenaia in 566. Further support for this interpretation may perhaps be found in our literary sources. After connecting the death of Asterios the Giant with Erichthonios’ reign and the Little Panathenaia, the scholia on Aelius Aristeides continue to report that Peisistratos put on the great festival.19 Since he was not yet tyrant in 566, Peisistratos cannot have been responsible for the institution of the penteteric celebration; consequently, Sourvinou-Inwood has simply dismissed the passage as ‘a distorted refraction of the reorganisation’.20 We know, however, that the festival did change significantly in the 560s, and so the reference to Peisistratos in the scholia need not cause us to reject it completely. Indeed, the misunderstanding of what took place at that time and the evidence of the visual realm suggest that the Gigantomachy was not being invoked here by chance. Rather, like the visual evidence, it seems to 17

18

19 20

c. 550 540: National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1632: Vian 1951: no. 111, pl. 23; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 84; Vian 1988: no. 110; c. 530: National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1244: Vian 1951: no. 115; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 72; Vian 1988: no. 119; c. 520 500: National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1538a: Vian 1951: no. 207; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 81. National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 2559: Vian 1951: no. 149, pl. 29; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 108; Karoglou 2010: 82 3, no. 62, fig. 58; National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 2588 ARV2 164, 1: Vian 1951: no. 214; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 109; Karoglou 2010: 90, no. 90; National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 2499: Vian 1951: no. 212; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 102; Karoglou 2010: 92, no. 98, fig. 51. Other archaic terracotta plaques from the Akropolis may also have depicted the Gigantomachy, but the remains are too fragmentary to be certain. Above note 8. Above Chapter 1 note 9; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 273. Her objections are both to Peisistratos and to the identification of Amphiktyon as Erichthonios’ father.

The Gigantomachy and the Pyrrhiche

imply that the reorganisation included the introduction of this story as the reason for the festival. Once the Gigantomachy became part of the traditions of the Panathenaia, it developed into one of the dominant themes of this very long-lived festival.

The Gigantomachy and the Pyrrhiche In addition to the celebration’s foundation story, the Gigantomachy and the Panathenaia were also connected through the pyrrhiche, which was invented by Athena in the aftermath of the struggle.21 This explanation seems to have been a particularly Athenian one; in other places, alternative explanations were offered, and they provided quite a variety of reasons for the invention of the dance.22 In Athens, as we shall see, this competition was particularly performed at the Panathenaia, so that the context brought it into close proximity with the story explaining the reason for the whole occasion. In this way, the dance extended and brought out the martial theme of Athena’s festival. Our best evidence for the connection between Athena, the Gigantomachy and the dance comes from Dionysios of Halikarnassos, for whom it was a very old Greek practice. Either ‘at the destruction of the Titans’, Athena first performed choruses (χορεύειν) and danced (ὀρχεῖσθαι) with weapons and sang victory songs for joy, or, at an earlier date, the Kouretai invented the dance to amuse the baby Zeus.23 Dionysios seems to be reporting two quite separate traditions, because Zeus’ childhood was located on Crete and not in Athens. Logically, Athena could not have taken part in the battle against the Titans, because she had not yet been born; we must be dealing here with a confusion between the Titans and the later Giants. Since Euripides twice substitutes Titans for Giants, it seems likely that Dionysios’ information comes from an Athenian tradition.24 The association between the goddess and the dance also appears in some of our Athenian sources. When Plato discusses the education of citizens’ 21

22

23

24

Pinney 1988: 468 74; Wheeler 1982: 231; Borthwick 1969: 389 90; Borthwick 1970: 318 19, 322; Ceccarelli 1998: 27 30. See the recent helpful summary in Ceccarelli 2004: 91 2 with note 3 and, in much more detail, Ceccarelli 1998: 187 218. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7.72.7. The Kouretai are divine young male warriors on Crete who are the equivalent of the nymphs. Eur. Hec. 466 73; IT 221 4; and above note 13; cf. Vian 1952: 211, 249; Pinney 1988: 471; Borthwick 1969: 389.

45

46

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

children in the Laws, he considers dance to be appropriate physical training, and he adduces several divine examples, including Athena, who, rejoicing in the play of the choral dances (τῇ τῆς χορείας παιδιᾷ), takes part in a full panoply.25 In the Kratylos, Sokrates provides an etymology for the name Pallas: it comes from the dance (ὀρχήσεως) in arms, because ‘either to lift up oneself or to lift up something else either from the ground or with one’s hands we call both to shake (πάλλειν) and to be shaken (πάλλεσθαι) and to dance (ὀρχεῖν) and to be danced (ὀρχεῖσθαι)’.26 This explanation clearly links Athena, Pallas and dancing in arms. Plato does not record in either case why Athena was dancing in arms, but he opines at the end of the section in the Laws that it would be good for youths and maidens to imitate the goddess completely and so honour her favour (χάριν) ‘both in the use of war and on account of festivals’. For Athenians, of course, the most important festival for thanking the goddess for her ongoing charis was the Panathenaia. The association of war and festivals recalls the tradition reported by Dionysios, and it suggests that Plato was familiar with a story in which Athena invented the pyrrhiche to celebrate her victory over the Giants.27 These connections also appear in a passage in Eumenides in which Aischylos juxtaposes Athena’s presence at Phlegraia, where the battle with the Giants took place, with a reference to her movements in the dance, and he also mentions the river Triton where she was born.28 The combination of Athena, the river, whence her epithet Tritogeneia, and the pyrrhiche recalls the famous passage in the Clouds when the Stronger Argument complains to the Weaker Argument about the men of today and their shameful lack of physical fitness: but now you teach them straightaway to roll themselves up in their himatia so that it makes me ready to choke when it is necessary for them to dance at the Panathenaia and, holding his shield in front of his member (κωλῆς), one of them neglects Tritogeneia.29

Although the festival is mentioned specifically, the Giants are not included. Nevertheless, the passage does repeat some of the same terms as our other passages, and it links into the same nexus of ideas. Collectively, these texts bring out the very particular set of connections which the pyrrhiche had for 25 27

28 29

Pl. Leg. 7.796b6 c2. 26 Pl. Cra. 406d12 407a2; cf. Eur. Ion 209 11; Borthwick 1970: 319. That Plato’s pyrrhiche is based on the Athenian one is suggested by Wheeler 1982: 231 2; cf. Borthwick 1970: 319; contra: Scarpi 1979: 81; Poursat 1968: 566 note 2. Aisch. Eum. 292 6; Borthwick 1969: 385 90; Sommerstein 1989: 134. Ar. Clouds 987 9. On the term κωλῆ, see Henderson 1991: 129, no. 100 and cf. 20, 73, 76, 109. On the age of the males described here, see Chapter 5 note 95.

The Gigantomachy and the Pyrrhiche

Athenians, who understood it as especially associated with their most important festival. The story connecting the pyrrhiche and the Gigantomachy seems to have been purely an Athenian version, because explanations from other parts of the Greek world clearly existed already in the archaic period. Stesichoros from Magna Graecia, for example, presents the dance as performed by the goddess immediately after her birth.30 The local Athenian variant is of particular importance for us, because it explains why the pyrrhiche holds a special position among the contests at the Panathenaia. As we shall see in more detail in subsequent chapters, the dance in arms was certainly performed at both the Great Panathenaia and the Little Panathenaia from the late fifth century until the late fourth century.31 Since the games are associated specifically with the Great Panathenaia, the inclusion of contests for the pyrrhiche in the annual festival indicates how important and integral it was to the celebration. Its special status could be easily understood from the story that Athena invented the dance to celebrate her victory over the Giants. This local variant would also explain why the scholia on Aristophanes’ Clouds only connect the dance with the Panathenaia and with none of the city’s other festivals.32 The passage in the Clouds is very clear about the appearance of the dancers in the pyrrhiche: they are naked, and they carry shields. Such pyrrhichistai appear in Attic vase painting already in the sixth century: the earliest examples are a red-figure cup by Epiktetos, which is dated to between 520 and 510 bc, and a red-figure cup in Heidelberg, which dates to about 510 bc (Fig. 2.1);33 they continue to be shown until about 460 bc.34 Usually, the dancers are shown naked and armed with a helmet, shield and spear. On three fourthcentury bases which commemorate victories in the pyrrhiche, the reliefs also depict the participants in the competition as naked with helmets and shields; on Atarbos’ monument, their hands are clenched, and they must originally have carried painted spears (Fig. 2.2).35 Strikingly, Athena is shown with these 30

31

32 33

34 35

Stesich. 56 (233) (PMG) fr. 270a (Finglass); repeated by Lucian, Dial. D. (79).13; Borthwick 1969: 386 7. For other versions, see above note 22. Lys. 21.1, 4; SEG XXIII 103 IG II3.4 433; LIII 192.133 135; LIII 202 IG II3.4 435; Pinney 1988: 468; Tracy 2007: 56. Schol. vet. Ar. Clouds 988a; cf. schol. rec. Ar. Clouds 988f; schol. Tzet. Ar. Clouds 989b. Musei Vaticani, Rome, 506 ARV2 73, 27: Poursat 1968: 566, no. 7, fig. 14; Meyer 2017: 640 fig. 352; Antikenmuseum der Universität, Heidelberg, 74/1: Ceccarelli 1998: 236 7, no. 59, pl. 7. From c. 520 bc, compare a cup signed by Euphronios and formerly in the Nelson Bunker Hunt Collection: Cody 1983: 56; Ceccarelli 1998: 236 7, no. 58, pl. 7; on the oddities of this scene, see Ceccarelli 2004: 113. National Museum, Athens, 455: Poursat 1968: 576, no. 25, fig. 32. IG II2 3026 IG II3.4 434: Rausa 1998: pl. 37.1 3; Goette 2007b: 123, fig. 6; SEG XXIII 103 IG II3.4 433: Rausa 1998: pl. 37.4; Goette 2007b: 124, fig. 7; SEG LIII 202 IG II3.4 435: Rausa 1998:

47

48

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

Figure 2.1 Red figure cup attributed to either the Euergides Painter or the manner of the Epeleios Painter, c. 510 bc: two pyrrhichistai and an auletes (Antikenmuseum der Universität, Heidelberg, 74/1).

Figure 2.2 SEG LIII 202 = IG II3.4 435: Atarbos’ base, 323/2 bc: dancers in the pyrrhiche (Akropolis Museum, Athens, 1338). Their spears must originally have been shown in paint.

very weapons when she is depicted in the archaic Gigantomachies (Fig. 2.3).36 Neither she nor the human pyrrhichistai wear cuirasses. While the absence of body armour may nod towards the practicalities of dancing, it also links the mortals to the goddess and suggests a close connection between them. That one of the dance’s movements was called the ‘Athena’ reinforces this

36

pl. 36.2; Goette 2007b: 123, fig. 5. Since these reliefs do not show pyrrhichistai wearing cuirasses, I would follow Poursat in separating out such scenes; Poursat 1968: 550 83; contra: Ceccarelli 1998: 45 52, 234 7. E.g. Staatliche Museen, Berlin, F 3988: Vian 1951: no. 110; Vian 1988: no. 109; British Museum, London, B 208 ABV 260, 29: Para. 114; Addenda2 68; Vian 1951: no. 117, pl. 26; Vian 1988: no. 120. Weapons: Poursat 1968: 581; Pinney 1988: 468; Lonsdale 1993: 152; Ceccarelli 1998: 227. Downes’ argument that the pyrrhichistai did not hold any type of offensive weapon is not supported by the depictions on Attic vases which show the participants armed with spears; Downes 1904: 104 6.

The Gigantomachy and the Pyrrhiche

49

Figure 2.3 Black figure Panathenaic shaped amphora attributed to the manner of the Lysippides Painter, c. 530 520 bc: Gigantomachy. Zeus steps into the chariot next to Herakles, while Athena fights beside the horses (British Museum, London, B 208). This vase shows the standard early depiction of the central group in the Gigantomachy, while its shape imitates the prize vases and so emphasises the link between the battle and the festival.

50

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

association. The steps required the dancer to turn his head away from his body in another direction, an action which presumably imitated a well-known exploit of the goddess, hence its name; perhaps it was an episode specifically associated with the divine battle.37 Together, our evidence indicates that pyrrhichistai at the Panathenaia followed the example of the goddess who had first performed the dance, and they used her arms. When they performed the steps called the ‘Athena’, their imitation was extremely close and, at this moment, they actually took on her very own role. In some sense, then, they ‘became’ the goddess for a very short time, and they celebrated the divine victory over the Giants as if it had been their own. The Gigantomachy, consequently, provided a context for the invention of one of the competitions of the Panathenaia, as well as one of the foundation stories of the overall festival. The association between the dancers and Athena’s exploits against the Giants explained and emphasised the martial focus of the pyrrhiche, which further served to bring out the celebration’s overall military theme. It also identified the dance in arms as one of the occasion’s signature events. The rules of this competition reinforced its special status, because contestants had to be Athenians, who represented their tribes, and nonAthenians could not participate, as we shall see when we come to discuss the games. Divided into three age classes, boys, beardless youths and men, participants were male citizens-to-be, or the newest male citizens, or adult male citizens.38 They alone imitated the goddess by using her weapons and performing the dance which she invented, and so their participation brought out their official status in the city. In this way, the Panathenaia was also a venue for displaying an important aspect of what it meant to be an Athenian: a citizen (or citizen-to-be) who took part in the festivities by performing the dance invented by the goddess to celebrate the original victory over the Giants. Since the pyrrhiche was closely connected with the goddess, the event also emphasised that the Athenians, as their name suggested, enjoyed a close special relationship with their guardian divinity, while visitors, the inhabitants of other cities, did not.

Erichthonios, Founder of the Panathenaia The stories explaining the early history of the Panathenaia were not limited to the Gigantomachy, nor was the pyrrhiche the only competition which 37

38

P.Oxy. 2739; Borthwick 1970: 318 22. Borthwick suggests the killing of the Gorgon, which, in some versions such as Euripides, Ion 987 95, took place in the Gigantomachy at Phlegraia. SEG LIII 192.133 5.

Erichthonios, Founder of the Panathenaia

was closely connected with the festival. Other accounts identified either Erichthonios or Theseus as the human founder who first celebrated the festivities in honour of Athena. In both cases, the context for this foundation served to bring out the particularly Athenian nature of the Panathenaia, and the stories provide occasions for thinking about Athenian identities. Erichthonios not only held the festival for the first time, but he also invented the four-horse chariot and especially the apobatic race, the second contest particularly characteristic of this celebration. Since this competition involved armed men jumping in and out of moving chariots, it further brought out the martial theme of the Panathenaia in ways very similar to the pyrrhiche. In the earliest testimonia, only Erichthonios is attested as the founder of the celebration. According to Harpokration, both Hellanikos and Androtion recorded in the first book of their Atthides, or local histories of Attica, that Erichthonios first held the Panathenaia.39 This important evidence shows clearly that Erichthonios’ role was already established by the late fifth century bc, when Hellanikos was writing.40 In the middle of the fourth century bc, Androtion also assigned this function to the hero.41 As we saw earlier in our discussion of the Gigantomachy, one of the scholiasts on Aelius Aristeides’ Panathenaikos placed the (first) celebration of the annual festival in the reign of Erichthonios.42 Erichthonios’ role as founder is repeated by our Hellenistic sources, which provide us with further information. In 264/3 bc, the chronicle known as the Marmor Parium recorded that Erichthonios, when he was king, yoked the chariot at the first Panathenaia and put on the games.43 Although this inscribed chronicle was found on Paros, it depends on the traditions of the Atthidographers, and so it provides us with evidence from Athenian sources. In the fragmentary and abridged remains of the Katasterismoi, Eratosthenes identified the hero as the first to make the procession for Athena and her ‘famous sacrifice’.44 Since Eratosthenes spent time in Athens before he went to Alexandria, he is probably reflecting Athenian sources in his discussion of 39 40 41 43

44

Harp. s.v. Παναθήναια citing Hellanik. FGrHist 323a F2 and Androt. FGrHist 324 F2. Hellanikos’ date: Harding 1994: 9; Jacoby 1949: 1; Fowler 2013: 682 3. Androtion’s career: Harding 1994: 23 4, 25 6. 42 Above note 8. IG XII.5 444 FGrHist 239, A10, lines 17 18, 21. The date is provided by the opening lines, which include the name of the Athenian archon; IG XII.5 444 FGrHist 239, A, lines 1 3. As the text makes clear, many of the dates seem to have been calculated from 263/2 bc. Without citing a single epigraphical parallel, Rotstein claims that some letters point towards a date at the end of third century bc; Rotstein 2014: 4. The Athenian archon Diognetos is also known from IG II2 688.1 IG II3.1 923.1; Agora XVI 192.7; contra: Rotstein 2014: 3 note 8. Eratosth. Kat. 13. On the authorship of Eratosthenes and the history of the text, see Pàmias and Geus 2007: 31 4; Pàmias and Zucker 2013: xvii xxiv, ci cvi.

51

52

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

Erichthonios.45 He is explicitly cited by Hyginus, who associates the hero with the first sacrifices to Athena, the construction of the first temple on the Akropolis and the games at the Panathenaia.46 Our fullest account of the foundation of the celebration, however, is provided by the Bibliotheke of a certain Apollodoros; he reports that: having been raised in the temenos by Athena herself, Erichthonios, banishing Amphiktyon, was king of the Athenians; he set up the xoanon of Athena on the Akropolis, and he organised the festival of the Panathenaia and he married Praxithea, a Naiad nymph, from whom his son Pandion was born.47

Although the dates of Apollodoros’ activity are uncertain, he seems to have had access to large amounts of earlier material.48 Here, he appears to be drawing on information derived at the very least from Athenian sources: his version is certainly not inconsistent with our other classical and Hellenistic testimonia. Erichthonios’ role as founder is further reported by some of our other lexicographical works and the scholia on Plato’s Parmenides.49 One very clear tradition, accordingly, identified the early king Erichthonios as the person who first held the Panathenaia in honour of Athena, and this version already existed by the late fifth century bc. His actions were not limited merely to celebrating the festival for the first time, because various of our sources associate him with the games and particularly with chariots. As we have seen, the Marmor Parium credited Erichthonios with yoking the first chariot at the festival.50 Servius, on the authority of Varro, placed the invention of the new vehicle at the games, while 45

46

47

48

49

50

Eratosthenes was born in Cyrene between 276 and 272 and died in Alexandria in 194. His appointment to the Museion probably belongs in 246. See Geus 2002: 7 15, 18 26; Pàmias and Geus 2007: 13; cf. Pàmias and Zucker 2013: vii ix. Hyg. Astr. 2.13; repeated by the schol. Germ. Arat. 157 60: G, BP. The identity, and so the dates, of Hyginus are unclear. If, as Le Boeuffle argues, he was the Augustan librarian C. Iulius Hyginus, then the De astronomia must date to the very late first century bc or the very early first century ad. Le Boeuffle notes further that Hyginus’ work should belong before Germanicus’ translation of Aratus, which Hyginus does not mention, i.e. before ad 16 or 17. In any event, the work must be dated before ad 207, when it was translated into Greek by [Doritheos]. See Le Boeuffle 1983: xxxi xli. Apollod. Bibl. 3.14.6. Although Photios attributed the work to Apollodoros of Athens, the latter is generally thought not to have been the author; Phot. Bibl. 186.142a b; see helpfully Carriére 1991: 7 9. For Apollodoros and his sources, see Cameron 2004: 93 104; Carriére 1991: 12 17. While Cameron implies an early imperial date, Carriére argues for a date c. ad 200; Carriére 1991: 9 12. Phot. Lex. s.v. Παναθήναια; schol. Pl. Prm. 127a; repeated by Suda s.v. Παναθήναια, Apostol. 14.6. Since the scholiast on Plato, Apostolios and the first entries in both the Suda and Photios’ Lexikon have the same textual corruption in a passage about the ages of the competitors, they are clearly all related and should reflect a common source. Above note 43.

Erichthonios, Founder of the Panathenaia

Hyginus knew that the hero had raced in these contests.51 Vergil’s reference to Erichthonios and the first chariot, which led Servius to comment, also requires a racing context.52 The hero’s invention of the first car is mentioned without a specific occasion by various other Hellenistic and Roman authors;53 his contribution to human society was evidently well known in antiquity beyond the Athenian tradition now represented by the Marmor Parium. The specific type of chariot which Erichthonios invented is also made clear by our sources: Greek authors call it a harma (ἅρμα), while Latin ones use quadriga. Although the word harma may be used generically, in athletic contexts, it is always the technical term for a vehicle pulled by four horses and the equivalent of the Latin quadriga.54 Erichthonios’ invention, consequently, was the type of chariot used in the most important and prominent races in the hippic competitions. His connections with this vehicle extended beyond its discovery, because it was used in the apobatic race, the contest which the hero was said to have invented. On the authority of Theophrastos, Harpokration reports that the race was practised only by Athenians and Boiotians, the latter presumably at the Sanctuary of Amphiaraos at Oropos, while the lexicon known as the Synagoge and Photios both report that it was performed only for Athena, a statement which requires a context at the Panathenaia.55 The connections between the contest, the festival and Erichthonios are explicitly reported by Eratosthenes in the Katasterismoi: when he grew up, Erichthonios made this discovery [the chariot] and, when he became an expert competitor, he was admired; he celebrated the Panathenaia carefully and, having a parabates who had (ἔχοντα) a small shield and a triple crested helmet on his head, he drove a chariot; from that man, through imitation, we get the so called apobates.56 51 53

54

55

56

Serv. Com. G. 3.113; Hyg. Astr. 2.13. 52 Verg. G. 3.113 14. Eratosth. Kat. 13; Aristeid. Or. 1.43 (Lenz and Behr), 37.14 (Keil); Ael. VH 3.38; Euseb. Chron. s.v. year of Abraham 546 (Helm: 46b; Schoene II: 33); Plin. HN 7.202; Hyg. Astr. 2.13; Fulg. Myth. 2.14; schol. Pind. Pyth. 5.10b (Drachmann). E.g. IG II2 2971.13 15; I.Lindos 68; SEG XLI 115, col. I.37 40, col. II.28 9, 32 3, 36 7, col. III.21 2, 25 6. Harp. s.v. ἀποβάτης citing Theophr. Nomoi fr. 15 (Szegedy Maszak); cf. [Dem.] 61.25; Parker 1996: 146 7 note 101. Synagoge s.v. ἀποβατῶν ἀγών (Cunningham, MS B); repeated by Phot. Lex. s.v. ἀποβατῶν ἀγών. The full name of the Synagoge is properly the Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων or the Collection of Useful Words. In this case, both Photios and the Synagoge are drawing on the same source; for the relationships of the various lexicographical sources, see Cunningham 2003: 13 14. Vian does not believe that a Panathenaic context is required, but there were no other games in honour of Athena at Athens; Vian 1952: 247. Eratosth. Kat. 13. The text as transmitted cannot be correct: ἤγαγε δ’ ἐπιμελῶς τὰ Παναθήναια καὶ ἅμα ἡνίοχον ἔχων παραβάτην ἀσπίδιον ἔχοντα καὶ τριλοφίαν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς. Pàmias, Geus and Zucker follow Heyne in bracketing ἡνίοχον, but the resulting text does not really make

53

54

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

In this passage, Erichthonios is identified as the inventor of the apobatic contest, and the event is placed in the context of the festival of Athena.57 This text comes at the end of a long section concerning the hero and his deeds: after the discovery of the chariot and the celebration of the Panathenaia, Eratosthenes states ‘Euripides speaks also concerning his birth in this way’ and reports the story of Erichthonios’ conception and birth, a narrative which ends with this description of the first apobatic competition. Editors of the fragments of Euripides have considered part, but not all, of this passage to be by the Athenian playwright, although, as presented by our extant text, the only logical terminus is either the final phrase of our passage, ‘from that man, through imitation, we get the so-called apobates’, or the end of the birth story immediately before it.58 Rather oddly, this section about the apobatic race includes the celebration of the festival, which was already reported before the birth story derived from Euripides. This repetition is most easily explained if the material taken from the dramatist included the invention of the apobatic race at the Panathenaia. Since Euripides died in 407/6, the story would then date before his death.59 In the late fifth century and perhaps before the publication of Hellanikos’ Atthis, consequently, Erichthonios was considered to be both the founder of the festival and the inventor of the apobatic contest. The recitation by a member of the Athenian royal family of the deeds of his or her ancestors would provide an appropriate dramatic context for this information. The description of the participants in this first apobatic contest is quite specific: Erichthonios served as the charioteer, while his companion has a small shield and a triple-crested helmet. As the participle ἔχοντα makes clear, this second person was certainly male; thus, despite the triple-crested helmet, the companion (the parabates) cannot have been the goddess Athena, as Peter Schultz supposes.60 For Vian, this triple-crested helmet recalled the helmet of Pheidias’ gold and ivory statue in the Parthenon, and so the companion embodied the goddess in person.61 Aischylos, however,

57 58

59 61

sense, as their translations demonstrate. A better solution is to follow Robert in amending the text to read καὶ ἅρμα ἡνιόχει ἔχων παραβάτην, as I have done here. This amendment is also consistent with Hyginus’ parallel statement that Erichthonios ludos Minervae Panathenaea fecisse et ipsum quadrigas cucurrisse; Hyg. Astr. 2.13. Vian 1952: 247; Kyle 1992: 89, 205 note 72; d’Ayala Valva 1996: 7 8; Schultz 2007: 59 60. E.g. Nauck and Kannicht, TrGF fr. 925, who end the passage with the phrase ‘who from this was called Erichthonios’. Schultz accepts without discussion the attribution of this section to Euripides; Schultz 2007: 59. Euripides’ death: Dover 1993: 6; Sommerstein 1996: 8. 60 Schultz 2007: 60. Vian 1952: 247 8 with note 10; cf. Parker 2005: 254. The first representation of Athena wearing such a helmet seems to have been Pheidias’ statue in the Parthenon; for it, see Paus. 1.24.5.

Erichthonios, Founder of the Panathenaia

describes Tydeus wearing this type of helmet in the Seven Against Thebes, and Aristophanes placed such headgear on Lamachos in Acharnians and a taxiarchos or commander of a tribal regiment in Peace;62 such a helmet, consequently, was appropriate for heroes. Erichthonios’ male companion would have had a status suitable for his role as an associate of the founder of the festival and the competition; later participants in the race at the games, accordingly, could have been understood as imitating this heroic pair. While this tradition identifies Erichthonios and his partner as the participants in the first apobatic race, Attic vase painting indicates that a second variant involving the hero and the goddess also existed. A blackfigure oinochoe dated to about 510 bc and attributed to the Painter of Oxford 224 shows a bearded male charioteer driving a four-horse chariot towards a turning post on the right side of the vessel, while Athena races alongside the horses as an apobates (Fig. 2.4).63 Since the contest was specifically associated with the Panathenaia, this scene ought to be connected with that context; it may plausibly be understood as showing the invention of the event.64 The goddess wears an Attic helmet with a high crest, the aegis and a peplos, and she carries a shield, so that she looks as if she belongs on a contemporary prize amphora (cf. Fig. 1.1).65 This representation of the goddess invokes her festival and especially her games. It suggests that viewers would connect the apobatic race, its invention by the goddess and her foster son Erichthonios and the Panathenaia. At the end of the sixth century and the beginning of the fifth century, a less detailed rendition of the composition was repeated on a series of lekythoi painted in the manner of the Haimon Painter.66 About 400 bc, Athena again appears as apobates on a red-figure krater from Olynthos; now, however, Nike drives the vehicle, rather than a human charioteer, and two other Nikai

62 63

64

65

66

Aisch. Sept. 384 5; Ar. Ach. 965; Peace 1173; cf. Ar. Birds 94; Dunbar 1995: 162. National Museum, Copenhagen, Chr. VIII 340 ABV 435, 1: Kron 1976: 255 no. E43; Kron 1988: no. 50; Neils 1992a: 21 fig. 6; d’Ayala Valva 1996: pl. 1.2; Schultz 2007: 61 fig. 2. Compare Schultz 2007: 60; Parker 2005: 254 5; Neils and Schultz 2012: 202 note 37; see also Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 169, who accepts the male figure as Erichthonios. Such as the slightly earlier name piece of the Euphiletos Painter: British Museum, London, B 134: Bentz 1998: 6.059, pl. 17. ABV 545, 184 94; Schultz 2007: 70 1, nos. 26, 28 33, 35, 36, 39, 53, 63. The same painters also painted lekythoi which show a male apobates racing beside the chariot; ABV 544 5, 149 83; Schultz 2007: 70 2, nos. 7 25, 27, 34, 37, 38, 40 52, 54 62, 64 73. The unconvinced might object that these painters sometimes produced scenes which make no sense to us, but the existence of the oinochoe by the Painter of Oxford 224 indicates that Athena and the invention of the apobatic contest was a reasonable subject for vase painting at this time. For the iconography, see also Schultz 2007: 61 6.

55

56

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

Figure 2.4 Black figure oinochoe by the Painter of Oxford 224, c. 510 bc: Athena and Erichthonios in the apobatic race (National Museum, Copenhagen, Chr. VIII 340). Note that Erichthonios carries an (unnecessary) shield on his back.

Erichthonios, Founder of the Panathenaia

appear next to it.67 These images indicate that, by about 510 bc, both Erichthonios and Athena were connected with the invention of the apobatic contest; the goddess’ association continued until at least about 400. From the late sixth century, every charioteer imitated Erichthonios, while the apobatai followed the model of the goddess, just as the pyrrhichistai did when they competed in the dance which she had invented. As we shall see when we discuss the games, only male Athenian citizens could take part in this race. When they did so, they were brought into a close relationship with both the hero and his foster mother.68 Being Athenian, consequently, meant not only competing in the pyrrhiche, but also racing in the apobatic contest, while individuals from other cities sat and watched the spectacle. The competition itself must have been included in the games already by about 525–510, when it was shown with human participants on the lid of a red-figure pyxis signed by the potter Nikosthenes.69 How the early history of the apobatic race was understood before this time is less clear, because no certain depictions of this contest nor any early written testimonia exist.70 Herodotos’ story of the events surrounding the beginning of Peisistratos’ second tyranny suggests, however, that Athena and Erichthonios were already connected with the competition at this time. In either 557/6 or 556/5, together with a tall woman dressed in a panoply, Peisistratos drove into the city in a chariot (ἅρμα) to the acclamations of heralds who announced that Athena was bringing Peisistratos back to her own Akropolis.71 Much to Herodotos’ disgust, the Athenians believed what they heard and saw; consequently, they worshipped the woman, whose name was Phye, and they welcomed back Peisistratos. Subsequently, when Aristotle and Kleidemos came to describe this episode, they called Phye a parabates, the same term which Eratosthenes used for Erichthonios’ companion.72 Aristotle further specifies that Peisistratos drove into the city in a chariot (ἅρμα), a detail which Kleidemos’ use of the term parabates assumes. The Athenians’ acceptance of Peisistratos indicates that the imagery involved was both appropriate and intelligible. As depicted in 67

68 69

70

71 72

Olynthos inv. 115: D. M. Robinson 1933: pls. 68 70; Schultz 2007: 72, no. 77. I remain unconvinced that the apobates on Museo Civico, Arezzo, 1413 is Athena and not a male human, as Schultz states; Tiverios 1991: fig. 6; contra; Schultz 2007: 72, no. 75. Compare Parker 2005: 255. Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia, Rome, 20749 ARV2 127, 30: Para. 333; Addenda2 176; Neils and Schultz 2012: 203, 204 fig. 9; Lyons 2009: 169, 175 no. 14. While Lyons dates the pyxis and its lid to c. 530 520, Neils and Schultz date it to c. 510. Schultz’s early black figure examples do not certainly show the contest, and they may simply show Homeric style warriors heading into battle (nos. 2 4) or in combat (no. 1); Schultz 2007: 70, nos. 1 5. I have not been able to check his no. 5. Hdt. 1.60.2 5. On the date, see Rhodes 1981: 197 9. Arist. Ath. Pol. 14.4; Kleidem. FGrHist 323 F15.

57

58

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

our sources, Peisistratos’ arrival closely resembles the story of Erichthonios, Athena and the invention of the apobatic contest.73 By presenting his return in this way, Peisistratos situated himself as a participant in the event in the games, while he also assimilated himself to the hero, as Phye took the part of Athena. This episode strongly suggests that Erichthonios’ and Athena’s invention of the competition was already well known in the early 550s. The imagery of the apobatic contest also seems to have been picked up in archaic depictions of the Gigantomachy, as Vian noted.74 Early versions typically show Athena fighting on foot beside her father’s chariot, while Herakles shoots from the car and Zeus, holding the reins, steps into the vehicle (Fig. 2.5; cf. 2.3)75 Athena is in the position of the apobates who runs beside the horses, very much as she is described by Euripides in Ion.76 Zeus’ pose, in the middle of mounting the car, also recalls the participants in the contest, who jumped on and off their moving chariots. In about 530, this standard scene began to change. First, Zeus was replaced with an anonymous charioteer, while Herakles continued to stand in the car and Athena fought next to it (Fig. 2.6).77 At about the same time, an anonymous male warrior was also substituted for Herakles (Fig. 2.7).78 The effect of these substitutions is to bring the action down into the realm of humans, who now participate in the divine battle. More is going on in these images than merely illustrating the Gigantomachy: this new iconography brings out the links between the battle and the apobatic competition. The hoplite who replaced Herakles ceased to be shown as early as 540–530 bc, and this composition became more popular later in the

73

74 75

76

77

78

As is clear from Sourvinou Inwood’s discussion; nevertheless, she unconvincingly associates it with the ‘Plynteria/Kallynteria nexus’; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 168 71. Using an inscription dating to ad 255 (IG II2 2245) to explain an event which took place over 800 years before in the early 550s bc is methodologically questionable. For the date of IG II2 2245, see Shear 2012d: 165. The Panathenaic connection is also noted by Schultz; Schultz 2007: 61. For other interpretations of the events, see e.g. Connor 2000: 60 8; Sinos 1993; Deacy 2007: 231 2. Vian 1952: 102 4, 248. See e.g. National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 607 and 2134: above note 16. Iconography: Vian 1952: 95 7. Herakles usually has one foot on the draught pole of the chariot. ‘By Athena Nike who once fought beside (παρασπίζουσαν) the chariot of Zeus against the Giants’; Eur. Ion 1528 9; Vian 1952: 246; cf. Parker 2005: 254 note 7. That the goddess is called Athena Nike in this passage suggests a link between this description, the Akropolis and the festival. As on Musei Vaticani, Rome, 365 ABV 311, 1, 693: Para. 135; Vian 1951: no. 123, pl. 27; Vian 1988: no. 125; Albizzati 1925 39: pl. 50. Iconography: Vian 1952: 102. As on Musei Vaticani, Rome, 360: Vian 1951: no. 127, pl. 27; Vian 1988: no. 131; Albizzati 1925 39: pl. 47; and on British Museum, London, B 251 ABV 139, 2: Addenda2 37; Vian 1951: no. 125; Vian 1988: no. 129b.

Erichthonios, Founder of the Panathenaia

Figure 2.5 Fragment of a black figure kantharos, c. 560 bc: Gigantomachy. Detail of Zeus stepping into his chariot and the legs of Athena behind the horses (National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 2134a). The partially preserved lion skin identifies the figure in the chariot as Herakles.

century (Fig. 2.8).79 Removing the warrior left only the human charioteer and the goddess as participants; since Athena continues to run beside the chariot, they look like competitors in the apobatic race, a development which made the connections between the contest and the battle more explicit. When this composition is placed on a lekythos or a similarly shaped vessel, viewers cannot take in the whole composition at once, as an example from about 500–490 shows.80 Initially, they see only the chariot with its driver and the goddess running by the hindquarters of the horses, so that the scene appears to show the invention of the contest (Fig. 2.9). Rotating the vase reveals the falling Giant and shows that the subject is, in fact, the Gigantomachy rather than the competition (Fig. 2.10). On another contemporary lekythos, Athena runs alongside the chariot as an apobates, but the Giant was omitted and replaced with a Corinthian helmet below the horses.81 The removal of the goddess’ opponents actually turns the 79

80

81

Early example: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 24.97.95: Vian 1951: no. 134; Vian 1988: no. 139. Later examples: c. 520: Museo Regionale, Palermo, 1832 ABV 454: ABL 42; Vian 1951: no. 138; Vian 1988: no. 143; c. 500 480: lekythos formerly in the Lambros Collection ABL 227, 30: Vian 1951: no. 140; Vian 1988: no. 145; Archaeological Museum, Thebes, R.46.43 ABV 546, 213: Vian 1988: no. 149. Iconography: Vian 1952: 102. As e.g. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 41.162.35 ABV 507, 3: Vian 1951: no. 139; Vian 1988: no. 144; Chase and Pease 1942: pl. 45.2. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 77.220 (R. 347) ABV 546: ABL 243, 41; Vian 1951: no. 142; Vian 1988: no. 147; see also Vian 1952: 103.

59

60

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

Figure 2.6 Black figure amphora by the Painter of Vatican 365, c. 530 bc: Gigantomachy. An anonymous warrior steps into the chariot next to Herakles, while Athena fights beside the horses (Musei Vaticani, Rome, 365).

battle into a race. The links between the two occasions may also be emphasised by inserting a turning post into the middle of the conflict.82 As these examples demonstrate, the iconography of the Gigantomachy 82

British Museum, London, B 676

ABV 555, 425: Vian 1951: no. 143; see also Vian 1952: 103.

Erichthonios, Founder of the Panathenaia

Figure 2.7 Black figure neck amphora attributed to the Group of London B 145, c. 530 bc: Gigantomachy. An anonymous charioteer and warrior stand in the chariot, while Athena fights beside the horses (British Museum, London, B 251).

61

62

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

Figure 2.8 Black figure column krater, c. 540 530 bc: Gigantomachy. Athena fights beside the horses, while an anonymous charioteer drives (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 24.97.95).

shows distinct influences of the apobatic race, and this bleeding cannot be dismissed simply as an oddity of a particular vessel.83 The battle may also affect the iconography of the race. Rather oddly, the charioteer on the oinochoe of the Painter of Oxford 224 has a shield on his back, an item which he would not need in the competition, but he might use in fighting (Fig. 2.4).84 83 84

Vian 1952: 102 4, 248. Another example may exist on a black figure neck amphora of c. 540: Antikensammlung, Berlin, F 1716 ABV 137, 62: H. Mommsen 2013: pls. 24.1, 25.1; Schultz 2007: 70, no. 1. It shows a charioteer and an armed warrior in a galloping chariot. Oddly, the warrior has one foot on the draught pole of the chariot, exactly as Herakles stands in the Gigantomachy; Vian 1952: 96. This detail perhaps indicates that the scene is actually the apobatic race, as identified by Schultz; Schultz 2007: 70, no. 1. Certainty, however, remains elusive; see above note 70.

Erichthonios, Founder of the Panathenaia

Figure 2.9 Black figure lekythos by the Sappho Painter, c. 500 490 bc: Gigantomachy. Detail of the chariot and Athena (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 41.162.35). The charioteer carries a shield on his back, the primary cue for the viewer to identify the scene as the battle and not the race.

63

64

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

Figure 2.10 Black figure lekythos by the Sappho Painter, c. 500 490 bc: Gigantomachy. Detail of the horses and a Giant (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 41.162.35). Turning the lekythos reveals the Giant whom Athena fights. Now the identity of the subject is not in doubt.

Erichthonios, Founder of the Panathenaia

These cross influences bring out the connections between the battle and the apobatic race, a contest which, in Athens, took place only at the Panathenaia. They provide a particularly Panathenaic lens through which to view the images. In order for the iconography to be intelligible, however, both the apobatic race and the goddess’ role in its invention must be well known; otherwise, these images remain in need of an explanation. In conjunction with the story about Peisistratos’ return with Phye, our visual evidence suggests that this competition was already part of the games in the 560s and that its invention was by now attributed to Erichthonios and his foster mother.85 Since, in the earliest Gigantomachies, the goddess is shown next to Zeus’ chariot in the position of an apobates, it seems likely that the contest was already part of Athena’s festival before the reorganisation of 566. Once the battle and the celebration were brought together, the armed conflict quickly became closely associated with the race. The military flavour of the competition with its armed participants reiterated the overall martial theme of the Panathenaia. As with the pyrrhiche, contestants imitated the goddess (and her foster son); in this way, their actions emphasised that to be Athenian was to participate in this particular event in the games and to display their martial prowess. Erichthonios’ activities were not limited to founding the Panathenaia, a role which he probably had already acquired by the middle of the sixth century along with his invention of the apobatic contest. Writing in the early part of the third century bc, Philochoros associated the hero with the creation of two other positions connected with the festival, the kanephoroi or basket-bearers and the thallophoroi or branch-bearers. The role of the former was established in Erichthonios’ reign and we are told that they carried baskets (kana) with items for sacrifices at the Panathenaia and other processions.86 Although no particular occasion is specified, it seems likely that the passage comes from Philochoros’ description of the foundation of Athena’s celebration.87 Philochoros also established that Erichthonios instituted the office of thallophoroi, but, as the passage is now preserved, it does not mention the festival.88 Since the information is cited by the scholia on Aristophanes’ Wasps in a context which does concern the Panathenaia, Philochoros probably described Erichthonios as including the thallophoroi in the celebration.89 By 85

86 87 88 89

Race: cf. Parker 1996: 89 90; contra: G. Anderson 2003: 169 70; Neils and Schultz 2012: 203 4. Consequently, the figure of Erichthonios cannot have appeared for the first time in the fifth century, as stated by Sourvinou Inwood; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 62. Philoch. FGrHist 328 F8; repeated by Harp., Suda, Phot. Lex. s.v. κανηφόροι. Jacoby, FGrHist IIIb Suppl. I: 275. Philoch. FGrHist 328 F9; cited by the schol. Ar. Wasps 544b. Jacoby, FGrHist IIIb Suppl. I: 275.

65

66

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

the earlier part of the third century bc, accordingly, the hero’s foundation of the festival seems to have included the institution of various other elements, including the thallophoroi, who were considered to be characteristic of the occasion. This expansion not only brings out Erichthonios’ important role in the stories about the Panathenaia, but it also emphasises that his contributions to early Athenian life were in the sphere of ritual, hence his invention of specific positions within the festival.90 As Emily Kearns puts it, he ‘explain[s] and sanction[s], in “historical terms”, the . . . form of the cult’.91 This process was already going on the 560s, as the material about the apobatic race indicates, and it emphasises for us the importance of the hero in the festival’s narratives in the middle of the sixth century bc.

Erichthonios and Erechtheus The sources which we have considered so far refer specifically to Erichthonios and not to Erechtheus. Modern scholars, however, generally understand these two figures as originally one individual which, at some later and unspecified date, split into two in circumstances which are not explained.92 In making this assumption, they offer no parallels for this quite unusual situation: combination rather than splitting is the norm. Without sorting the evidence for the heroes by date and period, these scholars, like the Atthidographers, concentrate on producing a unified narrative, and they do not ask under what circumstances the Athenians would have come into contact with these heroes and their deeds.93 In fact, the ancient evidence shows that Erichthonios and Erechtheus were two separate heroes with different functions and spheres. Most importantly for us, only Erichthonios was associated with the Panathenaia, while Erechtheus was not mentioned in connection with it.94 Both figures were thought to have been born from the earth and, together with the earth-born Kekrops, they 90

91 92

93

94

He was also thought to have been the first person to sacrifice to Ge Kourotrophos on the Akropolis and to establish her altar; Suda s.v. κουροτρόφος γῆ; Parker 2005: 426. Kearns 1989: 120. Above note 5. Two important exceptions to this approach are Robertson 1985 and Parker 2005: 254 5; cf. Harding 1994: 84. Anyone adopting this approach needs to explain the how, where, when and why of this peculiar situation. But note the comments of Kearns 1989: 110 and Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 25, 47, 94, 100. Despite these comments, Sourvinou Inwood concentrates on producing just such a unified narrative, which is surprisingly synchronic and ahistorical, and must have been imposed from the top down; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 24 111 and especially pp. 48, 99. On this point, see also Kron 1976: 37; Parker 1987: 201.

Erichthonios and Erechtheus

highlight the Athenians’ extreme emphasis on the importance of autochthony. Euripides distinguished carefully between the two heroes already in his play Ion, which was performed at some time between about 421 and 409.95 For him, Erichthonios was the founder and ancestor of the house and the foster child of Athena, while Erechtheus was the descendent of Erichthonios and the father of Kreousa.96 Euripides clearly did not invent this distinction because, about 440–430 bc, both heroes were shown on a cup by the Kodros Painter.97 On the front, Ge hands the baby Erichthonios to Athena as Kekrops and others watch; on the other side, Erechtheus stands with two other early Attic kings, Aigeus and Pallas. Since the painter labelled all the figures, the identifications are certain. This design placed the two founders of the Athenian royal house, Kekrops and Erichthonios, on the front, while their descendants are shown on the reverse, so that not only Athenian autochthony, but also the generations of Athenians stretching back to the deep past are emphasised.98 In the early fourth century, Plato listed four related Attic heroes together: Erichthonios, Kekrops, Erechtheus and Erysichthon.99 He clearly thought that he was referring to four different figures. By the third quarter of the fifth century, accordingly, Athenians certainly distinguished between Erichthonios and Erechtheus, and they understood them as two different heroes. Besides the events connected with the Panathenaia, Erichthonios had two further roles: first, he was the father of Pandion, king of Athens, and second, he was born from the earth and then brought up by Athena. His relationship to Pandion goes back to at least the later fourth century, when it was mentioned by Hypereides.100 In contrast, the birth narrative is more widely attested and presents greater complications.101 The general story is well known: Hephaistos desired Athena and pursued her without success, because the virgin goddess fled. In the course of the chase, however, the god’s seed fell either on the ground or on the leg of Athena, who wiped it off with some wool, which she threw away. Erichthonios was then born from the earth and the divine seed, and he was then taken up by the goddess; consequently, he was known as the child either of Hephaistos and 95 97

98 100 101

96 On the date, see Lape 2010: 95 with further references. Eur. Ion 267 82, 999 1008. Staatliche Museen, Berlin, F 2537 ARV2 1268, 2: Para. 471; Addenda2 356; Kron 1988: no. 7; Kron 1976: 250, no. E5, pls. 4.2, 5.2; Shapiro 1998: 137, figs. 5 6. 99 Compare Shapiro 1998: 139; Kron 1976: 59 60. Pl. Criti. 110a7 8. Hyp. fr. 170, cited by Harp. s.v. Πανδιονίς; Apollod. Bibl. 3.14.6; Paus. 1.5.3; schol. Dem. 24.18. Sources: Pind. fr. 253; Eur. Ion 20 4, 999 1000; TrGF fr. 925 (Kannicht); Isok. 12.126; Eratosth. Kat. 13; Apollod. Bibl. 3.14.6; Harp. s.v. αὐτόχθονες; Luc. Philops. (34).3; Salt. (45).39; Paus. 1.2.6, 1.14.6; schol. Dem. 24.18; schol. Pl. Ti. 23e.

67

68

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

Ge or of Hephaistos and Athena. Already in the later sixth century, Athena’s flight from Hephaistos was shown on the Throne at Amyklai in Lakonia, as we know from Pausanias’ description, which, at the very least, implies the birth of Erichthonios as the obvious sequel.102 The earliest depiction of the birth in Attic vase painting is found on a black-figure lekythos dating to the years soon after 500 bc, and Pindar also knew that Erichthonios was born from the earth.103 Since this story is a particularly Athenian one, the evidence from Sparta suggests that it and, consequently, its hero were well known beyond the limits of Attica by the end of the sixth century; this knowledge may well have been disseminated through the Panathenaia. This autochthonous birth seems to be the source of the confusion between Erichthonios and the similarly named Erechtheus in our ancient sources and so also among modern scholars. Erechtheus was called earthborn as early as the Iliad, which also mentions his upbringing by the goddess, and, subsequently, Herodotos described him as ‘the so-called earth-born’ (τοῦ γηγενέος λεγομένου).104 Since neither Homer nor Herodotos was a native of Athens, they may have confused the two Attic heroes. Herodotos’ uncertainty, however, is marked; it was probably generated by encountering multiple heroes for whom this status was claimed. The Athenian Xenophon in the early fourth century also referred to the birth and care of Erechtheus, but he did not mention Hephaistos and he clearly knew the passage in the Homeric poem.105 That Sophokles may have considered the hero to be autochthonous is suggested by Tekmessa’s address to the sailors of Ajax, whom she calls ‘from the race of the sons of Erechtheus sprung from the earth (χθονίων)’.106 In this passage, it is the Erechtheidai who are earth-born, but this phrase implies that their heroic ancestor could also be imagined in the second half of the fifth century to have been born in this way. Although the authority of the Iliad may have been responsible for the identification of Erechtheus as earth-born, the Athenians seem to have been particularly partial to such heroes: Kekrops’ 102

103

104 105

106

Paus. 3.18.13; Robertson 1985: 272 3; contra: Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 38 9. It is not clear to me why this image ‘does not necessarily entail a story about a baby being born of the god’s seed’, as Sourvinou Inwood claims. Lekythos: Collezione I. Mormino, Banco di Sicilia, Palermo, inv. 769: Kron 1976: 56, 249, no. E1, pl. 1; Kron 1988: no. 1; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 40. Pind. fr. 253. Hom. Il. 2.547 8; Hdt. 8.55. Xen. Mem. 3.5.10. Aelius Aristeides also knew the Iliad passage and also did not mention Hephaistos; Aristeid. Or. 1.379 (Lenz and Behr). On the Homeric text, see the helpful comments of Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 64. Her observations, however, undermine the notion that Erechtheus and Erichthonios were originally the same figure. Soph. Aj. 201 2.

Erichthonios and Erechtheus

snaky lower body clearly points to his autochthonous origins.107 Indeed, they seem to have had three different figures whom they understood to have been born from the earth. Each of them had his own role to play in early Athenian history, but only Erichthonios was given an elaborate birth story as early as the fifth century bc. Collectively, the three heroes emphasised the autochthonous origins of all Athenians, and they marked an important difference between them and the inhabitants of other cities, who could not boast of such a lineage. The similarities between Erichthonios and Erechtheus are limited to their birth from the earth; otherwise, they have quite different stories.108 Erechtheus was the Athenian king par excellence, and his primary actions were in the battle between Athens and Eleusis: he fought Eumolpos and/or Immarados, sacrificed his daughter(s) and was finally killed by Poseidon.109 The iconic status of this battle and its consequence are made clear by Demosthenes: when he wants to cite the story which inspired the men of the tribe Erechtheis to valour against the enemy, he chooses Erechtheus’ sacrifice of his daughters.110 In the second quarter of the fifth century, the importance of the hero’s exploits in this battle is further attested by the dedication on the Akropolis of Myron’s statue group which showed Erechtheus fighting Eumolpos.111 The Athenian hero was also identified as the father of various children: Kreousa, Prokris, Oreithyia, Chthonia, Protogeneia, Pandora, Kekrops, Thespios, Metion or Sikyon, Orneus, Merope and Alkon.112 Erechtheus had several other specific functions which were never attributed to Erichthonios: he was the eponymous hero of the tribe Erechtheis; on the Akropolis, there was a cult of Poseidon107

108 109

110 112

Explicitly autochthonous: Apollod. Bibl. 3.14.1; half snake (implying autochthony): Ar. Wasps 438; Eur. Ion 1163 4; Kearns 1989: 110 12; Shapiro 1998: 136. Robertson 1985: 256. Eur. Ion 277; Erech. passim; Thuc. 2.15.1; Hellanik. FGrHist 323a F3; Isok. 12.193; Dem. 60.27; Lykourg. Leok. 98 9; Philoch. FGrHist 328 F13, F105; Plut. Mor. 310d; Paus. 1.5.2, 1.27.4, 1.36.4, 1.38.3; Aristeid. Or. 1.87 (Lenz and Behr); Apollod. Bibl. 3.15.4 5; schol. Dem. 19.303; schol. Eur. Phoen. 854; Harp., Suda s.v. Βοηδρόμια, Φορβαντεῖον; Suda s.v. παρθένοι; Kron 1976: 38; Mikalson 1976: 143; Parker 1987: 201 2; Loraux 1993: 47; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 57 60, 65 6; Fowler 2013: 460 8. Above note 109. 111 Paus. 1.27.4, 9.30.1. Kreousa: Eur. Ion 10, 260, 433, 546, 725, 1106, 1220; Paus. 1.28.4; Apollod. Bibl. 1.7.3; schol. vet. Ar. Clouds 1468a; Suda s.v. παρθένοι. Prokris: Hellanik. FGrHist 323a F22a; Paus. 9.19.1, 10.29.6; Apollod. Bibl. 1.9.4; schol. Eur. Or. 1648; schol. Hom. Od. 11.321; Suda s.v. παρθένοι. Oreithyia: Akus. FGrHist 2 F30; Hdt. 7.189; Philoch. FGrHist 328 F11; Diod. 4.43.3; schol. Ap. Rhod. 1.211 15c; schol. Eur. Phoen. 854; schol. Hom. Od. 14.533; Suda s.v. παρθένοι. Chthonia: Suda s.v. παρθένοι. Protogeneia: Suda s.v. παρθένοι. Pandora: Suda s.v. παρθένοι. Kekrops: Apollod. Bibl. 3.15.5. Thespios: Diod. 4.29.2. Metion or Sikyon: Paus. 2.6.5. Orneus: Paus. 2.25.6. Merope: Plut. Thes. 19.4. Alkon: Proxenos FGrHist 425 F2; schol. Ap. Rhod. 1.97 100. Erechtheus as father: Kron 1976: 37 8; Loraux 1993: 47.

69

70

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

Erechtheus, but not of Poseidon-Erichthonios, and he was connected with the Temple of Athena Polias, which was later called the Erechtheion.113 In contrast, Erechtheus was not associated with the Panathenaia, the primary sphere of Erichthonios. In late antiquity, the distinction between the two heroes finally broke down, as the scholia on Aelius Aristeides’ Panathenaikos make clear: with two exceptions, Erichthonios is treated as another name for Erechtheus.114 In three of these passages, Erechtheus is specifically described as the inventor of the chariot and the paredros or assistant of the goddess, roles which were originally ascribed to the other hero.115 Similarly, the scholia on the Iliad report that Erechtheus was also called Erichthonios, and they repeat the story of the latter’s birth, while the scholia on the Medea associate this narrative of the nativity only with Erechtheus.116 The evident overabundance of autochthonous Athenian heroes with their similar names was more than these later (nonAthenian) scholiasts could manage, and they clearly became muddled by the earlier texts. Athenians, however, would not have suffered from such confusion, because they met the two heroes in separate ritual settings which did not intersect.117 These contexts ought to have been the primary sphere in which 113

114

115

116 117

Eponymous hero: Dem. 60.28; Paus. 1.5.2, 10.10.1; schol. Dem. 20.94, 24.8, 18. Poseidon Erechtheus: Eur. Erech. fr. 370.90 4 (Kannicht); [Plut.] X orat. 843b, c; Apollod. Bibl. 3.15.1; Hsch. s.v. Ἐρεχθεύς; IG I3 873; IG II2 3538.8 9; 4071.26 7 I.Eleusis 463.26 7; Mikalson 1976: 143; Kron 1976: 48 52; Loraux 1993: 47; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 66 87; cf. Lacore 1983. Erechtheion: Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 14.2.1; Paus. 1.26.5; [Plut.] X orat. 843e; Hsch. s.v. οἰκουρὸν ὄφιν; cf. Hdt. 8.55. Erechtheus: schol. Aristeid. Or. 1.8 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 17 18 Jebb 95, 7 8; 1.13 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 28 Jebb 97, 16; 1.43 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 62 Jebb 107, 5 6; 1.85 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 109 10 Jebb 118, 10; 1.87 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 111 12 Jebb 118, 20; 1.87 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 113 Jebb 119, 3; 1.350 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 317 Jebb 187, 2; 1.354 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 321 Jebb 188, 2. Erichthonios: schol. Aristeid. Or. 1.19 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 37 Jebb 100, 11; 1.362 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 323 Jebb 189, 4. There is no evidence to support Sourvinou Inwood’s contention that Aelius Aristeides’ description ‘the paredros of the goddess’ at Oration 1.43 refers to Erechtheus and not Erichthonios; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 62, 74. In fact, he specifically describes Erechtheus as ‘the paredros of the gods on the Akropolis’, which is a different role; Aristeid. Or. 1.88. Aelius Aristeides clearly thought that they were two separate figures. Schol. Aristeid. Or. 1.43 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 62 Jebb 107, 5 6; 1.350 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 317 Jebb 187, 2. Compare also the passage which describes the Erichthonioi as the descendants of Erechtheus; schol. Aristeid. Or. 1.354 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 321 Jebb 188, 2. Schol. Hom. Il. 2.547; schol. Eur. Med. 825. Here, I follow Versnel’s insistence on the importance of not mixing up different categories. As he puts it, ‘do not ask an ancient Greek how the Apollo Aguieus at his doorstep . . . could have recovered the cattle that the Herm in his garden . . . had stolen, at it is told in the Homeric

Erichthonios and Erechtheus

knowledge of the heroes was disseminated. Those stories will inevitably have been partial in that they pertained to the particular occasion in question, and they were not intended to provide full narratives of the heroes’ whole lives. Thus, Athenians would have met Erechtheus at sacrifices for the tribal hero and the ritual events connected with the Erechtheion, whatever exactly they were.118 The priest of Poseidon was involved in the Skira, and so Erechtheus may have been connected with that festival, as Robertson has suggested.119 In the Athenian sacrificial calendar drawn up after 403 bc, Erechtheus received a lamb on the fifth of a month, probably Boedromion, and perhaps as part of the Genesia.120 In contrast, Erichthonios was associated with the Panathenaia, and perhaps he received cult on that occasion, although such rituals are not attested.121 Since he played such an important role in the stories about the festival, his accomplishments were very probably brought out at other moments during the festivities. If his birth story is correctly connected in some way with the arrhephoroi, then he may well have appeared in ritual contexts linked with them.122 Since only a very few girls were arrhephoroi, this office and its associated rituals cannot have been the main occasion for disseminating traditions about the hero. Instead, the stories must have been spread in the context of the Panathenaia and possibly other rituals in the sanctuary of Athena Polias on the Akropolis. As this brief summary makes clear, Erechtheus and Erichthonios occupied different Athenian ritual spheres in which they did not come into contact with each other: on any particular occasion, only the relevant hero and the appropriate part of his story were involved. Participation in this event activated Athenians’ memories about only that section of the hero’s deeds; other parts of his narrative and other figures not involved in the ritual were irrelevant, and so they were not recalled in this context.123 Thus, neither the heroes nor, importantly, their stories would have come into

118 119

120 121 122

123

Hymn to Hermes. Because you are mixing up different registers which makes you the one who is creating chaos’; Versnel 2011: 148 with 82 4, 110, 142 9. Tribal hero: Kron 1976: 52 5; Erechtheion: Paus. 1.26.5; cf. Kron 1976: 40 52. Harp. s.v. Σκίρον, citing Lysimachides FGrHist 366 F3; Robertson 1985: 235 6, 254; cf. Burkert 1983: 143 9; Parker 1987: 204. On the Skira, see helpfully Parker 2005: 173 7. SEG LII 48 fr. 1A.3 5; Lambert 2002a: 368 9; Lambert 2002b: 75 80; Parker 2005: 28. Cult at Panathenaia: Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 89. On the arrhephoroi, bearers of some sort of (sacred) objects, see helpfully Parker 2005: 219 23 with further references; cf. Robertson 1985: 256 8; contra: Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 42 6. Compare ‘other traditions about early Attica exist in almost a timeless world. Kekrops, Erechtheus and Erichthonios, Pandion are cult figures, sacral heroes whose origins lie in the diverse religious practices of the Acropolis. The order of their reigns and their mutual relationships is of no significance’; Kearns 1989: 110.

71

72

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

contact with each other in Athenians’ lived experiences. None of these rituals required full heroic biographies,124 and the Athenians could easily accommodate multiple autochthonous heroes, who brought out the uniqueness of the Athenians and their particularly close ties with their (literally) native land. When someone such as Hellanikos wanted to produce a narrative of early Athenian history, however, he had to bring together these different traditions and to assemble them into a coherent whole. At this point, inconsistencies and complications arose and had to be resolved.125 Nevertheless, as we have seen, the situation seems to have been fairly clear: the Athenians had three earth-born heroes, Kekrops, Erichthonios and Erechtheus, all of whom brought out the Athenians’ autochthonous nature. Each hero had different stories and roles: Erichthonios was the founder of the Panathenaia with the elaborate birth story and the close connection to his goddess foster mother, while Erechtheus was the king who sacrificed his daughter(s) and died fighting against the Eleusinians. Only in late antiquity did they start to become confused.

Theseus and the Panathenaia As we have seen, our earliest literary sources describe Erichthonios as the founder of the Panathenaia, a role which he certainly had by the late fifth century. He was also understood as the inventor of the apobatic race, a role which must go back at least to the reorganisation in 566, because this story ought to be the reference point for Peisistratos’ return with Phye in either 557/6 or 556/5. A small group of testimonia from the Roman period also link the festival with Theseus. He is not understood as the original founder, but as having a secondary role of reorganising the occasion in connection with his synoikismos or unification of the Athenians. The emphasis on reorganisation, together with our knowledge of the ways in which the traditions about Theseus were elaborated in Athens, suggests that the story may go back to the early classical period, and we should not dismiss it as a later invention. In the introduction to his book on Arkadia, Pausanias gives an extensive history of the region, a narrative which includes Lykaon’s foundation of the Lykaia for Zeus on Mount Lykaion. This event leads directly to his comment that the Panathenaia was not established before this Arcadian 124

Compare Fowler 2013: 447.

125

Compare Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 25.

Theseus and the Panathenaia

celebration because its name was originally the Athenaia ‘and they say that it was called Panathenaia in the time of Theseus because it was established by all of the Athenians gathered together in one city’.126 Although he does not use the term synoikismos or one of its cognates, Pausanias quite clearly understands Theseus’ actions as part of his unification of Attica. By changing the name of an existing festival, he made it reflect the Athenians’ new status as having all been brought together as one people. This information was subsequently repeated by the scholia on Plato’s Parmenides, Photios in his Lexikon and the Suda, which all drew on a common source.127 The entries in the Suda and Photios’ Lexikon actually use the word synoikismos, and all three testimonia attribute the initial foundation to Erichthonios. The Athenaia, however, is not mentioned; consequently, these three sources ought to have been drawing on a different version from the one which Pausanias used.128 Both variants represent the same overall tradition which connected Theseus, the Panathenaia and the unification of Attica. The association of the synoikismos of the Athenians with the Panathenaia is particularly striking because, in Thucydides’ day, the festival connected with Theseus’ actions was the Synoikia on 16 Hekatombaion, as we might expect from the name, which refers explicitly to the unification of the Athenians.129 At the end of the fifth century, these festivities involved the old Ionic tribe Geleontes; its presence indicates that the rituals must have been celebrated regularly before the introduction of the Kleisthenic democracy with its ten tribes in 508 bc.130 This fifth-century explanation contrasts with the stories connecting the unification of Attica with the Panathenaia. Further complications appear in Plutarch’s description in his Life of Theseus. He reports that Theseus destroyed the prytaneia and the bouleuteria and the civic offices in each settlement, and, having made a common prytaneion and bouleuterion for everyone here where the city is now established, he named the city Athens and made the Panathenaia a common sacrifice. He also celebrated the

126 127 128

129

130

Paus. 8.2.1. Schol. Pl. Prm. 127a; Phot. Lex., Suda s.v. Παναθήναια repeated by Apostol. 14.6. In Photios’ Lexikon and the Suda, the Athenaia appears in the second entry for Panathenaia, which must draw on a different source. Thuc. 2.15.2. Date: schol. Ar. Peace 1019 20 with SEG LII 48 fr. 3A.31 58; Mikalson 1975: 29 31; Deubner 1932: 37 8. SEG LII 48 fr. 3A.31 58; Lambert 2002a: 376 7. On the antiquity of the Synoikia, see Parker 1996: 14, 112 13, 169 with further bibliography. The participation of one of the Ionic tribes makes it impossible to view the Synoikia as a festival first instituted after 508, as Anderson would evidently like to do; G. Anderson 2003: 143 5.

73

74

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

Metoikia on the 16th of Hekatombaion, an occasion which they still celebrate today.131

Here, Plutarch associates the synoikismos with the Panathenaia and not with the festival on 16 Hekatombaion. Since the section about the bouleuteria or council houses is very similar to the passage in Thucydides, Plutarch must be drawing in part on the fifth-century description, but the connection with the Panathenaia must come from another tradition. If Plutarch knew the version in which Theseus changed the name of Athena’s festivities, he does not mention it. The complications of this passage also appear in the connection with the celebration on 16 Hekatombaion, which is described not as the Synoikia, but as the Metoikia. This difference in name has been identified as probably a mistake on Plutarch’s part, but his use of Thucydides and the existence of the festival in his own day bring out the oddity of this error.132 Perhaps the name of the festival changed at some time after the classical period. In any event, Plutarch certainly drew on at least two different sources about the unification of Attica, as well perhaps as his own experience, when he came to write this passage. One of those traditions associated Theseus’ synoikismos with the Panathenaia, which he made into a sacrifice for all the Athenians. Theseus’ connections with Athena’s celebration are not limited to these passages, because the scholia on Aristophanes’ Clouds attributed the discovery of war-chariots (τὰ πολεμιστήρια) to him.133 He is not otherwise associated with the invention of any sort of chariot, and all other versions attribute its discovery to Erichthonios, as we have already seen. The scholiast also reports that, in a war-chariot, the ‘hoplite mounted together with the parabates’. This description of two participants, including a parabates, is very similar to the apobatic contest, the event founded by Erichthonios. It appears as if Theseus’ activities at the festival are being modelled on those of the foster son of Athena. Since Erichthonios and Theseus are quite different heroes, some explanation is necessary. The former is clearly considered the original founder, and his connection with the Panathenaia is attested considerably earlier than the involvement of Theseus, who seems to have been depicted as changing a festival which

131 132

133

Plut. Thes. 24.3. Probable mistake: Parker 2005: 480 1; more confidently G. Anderson 2003: 256 note 46. Metics, of course, had ceased to exist long before Plutarch’s day; see below note 139. Schol. vet. Ar. Clouds 28a; repeated by schol. Tzet. Ar. Clouds 28.

Theseus and the Panathenaia

already existed.134 None of the testimonia, however, indicate when this important addition to the celebration’s narratives took place. To answer this question, scholars have had recourse to a fragment of Istros which reports that the festival was originally called Athenaia and, as the text now stands, the name was changed to Panathenaia by Erichthonios.135 The only way to connect it to Pausanias’ tradition is to assume that a considerable amount of information has been lost in transmission. It is, therefore, difficult to trace Theseus’ involvement before the Roman period, although this version need not have been invented in the imperial period. The obvious moments when Theseus might have entered the festival’s traditions are, in fact, much earlier. We know that the hero suddenly became popular at the end of the sixth century, and his stories apparently began to be elaborated at this time, a process which was more or less complete by the middle of the fifth century.136 Furthermore, after the return of Theseus’ bones in the 470s, a whole series of festivals became connected with him and the events in his life.137 The additions to the Panathenaia’s traditions would fall nicely into this pattern, but the emphasis on unity and Theseus’ role as a proto-democrat in Plutarch’s version would make the institution of the Kleisthenic democracy in 508/7 another plausible occasion for this addition. If Theseus’ activities at the Panathenaia had been incorporated into the occasion’s narratives by the 460s, then Theseus’ deeds against the Amazons and the Centaurs could have become particularly appropriate subjects for the west and south metopes of the Parthenon.138 It is also possible that, initially, Theseus was simply understood as having refounded the festival, while the connection with the synoikismos of Attica was added later. Such an explanation would resolve the problem of having two festivals in Hekatombaion which were both associated with Theseus’ unification of Attica;139 since, however, the 134 135

136

137 138

139

Walker 1995: 43; contra: Jacoby, FGrHist IIIb Suppl. I: 630. Istros FGrHist 334 F4; Parker 2005: 255; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 271 note 34; G. Anderson 2003: 174 5; cf. Jacoby, FGrHist IIIb Suppl. I: 631 2. G. Anderson 2003: 136 42 and Walker 1995: 35 66 with earlier bibliography; cf. Steinbock 2003: 170 4. For the visual material, see Neils 1987: 31 128, 143 51; Neils 1994b: 949 51. Parker 1996: 169; Kearns 1989: 120 4. Metopes: Hurwit 1999: 169, 171 4, fig. 139. Of the other festivals connected with Theseus, only the Synoikia seems to have an association with the Akropolis; Parker 1996: 169; Parker 2005: 481. Sourvinou Inwood’s discussion also presupposes that Theseus’ connection with the Panathenaia is early; Sourvinou Inwood 2011: 271, 275. In which case, we might wonder what exactly happened to the Synoikia after the fifth century. Could the name later have been changed to Metoikia? If so, a likely time is after metics (metoikoi) ceased to exist in Athens, a situation now connected with the years after 229 bc; Niku 2004; Niku 2007: 21 51, 146 9; contra: Whitehead 1986: 148 54, who placed the demise of metics in the early to mid third century bc.

75

76

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

ritual spheres were different, linking both occasions with the synoikismos should have been no more problematic for the Athenians than having the two heroes Erichthonios and Erechtheus.140 These traces of several different versions of the story suggest that it is unlikely to go back to a single source and to be an invention of the Atthidographers.141 When Theseus and his unification of Attica became connected with the Panathenaia, the association particularly brought out the inclusiveness of the occasion and stressed that the worshipping community consisted of ‘all the Athenians’.142 These aspects were further accentuated by Pausanias’ emphasis that it was celebrated by ‘all’ the Athenians and by Plutarch’s description of it as a ‘common’ sacrifice. Thus, the festival was also an occasion of internal unity, and it focuses on the Athenians as one undivided people. Theseus’ actions further serve to link a celebration originating in the deep past with the world familiar to contemporary Athenians. Plutarch’s and Pausanias’ emphasis on inclusivity brings out yet again the importance of participating in these festivities and how they were linked to what it meant to be Athenian: taking part demonstrated one’s membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’. In these ways, the story of Theseus’ (re)foundation of the Panathenaia was closely associated with some of the celebration’s most central aspects which played out in participants’ own experiences.

The Tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton at the Panathenaia As we have seen so far, the three main stories about the Panathenaia associated the occasion with the gods’ victory over the Giants in the divine battle, and they attributed its foundation first to Erichthonios and then to Theseus, whose activities were associated with the unification of Attica. The first two versions certainly existed quite early on in the celebration’s history and, as I have argued, they should go back to the reorganisation in 566. Erichthonios’ association with the festivities may well be even older. Certainly, it was well established by the time of Peisistratos’ return with 140

141

142

The synoikismos was also eventually used to explain the name of the month Metageitnion; Phot. Lex. s.v. Μεταγειτνιῶν; cf. schol. Thuc. 2.15.2; Parker 2005: 481 note 45. As these three different traditions show, the unification of Attica was a particularly potent event for ancient Athenians. As Parker implies may have been true; Parker 2005: 255; cf. G. Anderson 2003: 175; Jacoby, FGrHist IIIb Suppl. I: 630 1. Parker 2005: 255; Fowler 2013: 458.

The Tyrannicides at the Panathenaia

Phye. Theseus’ role is evidently a later development, but it is difficult to be certain when it was first added to the traditions of the Panathenaia. One further story was brought into play at the end of the sixth century, when the cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton was added to the festival’s rituals. Unlike the other narratives, which were connected with the early history of the Panathenaia and explained how it came to be, the cult and the account of its origins focused on a much more recent moment in the history of both the celebration and the city. For Athenians, it marked the seminal moment when the city became democratic. Henceforth, all events at Athena’s festivities were either before or after this particularly important occasion. The cult also imported democracy into the celebration, so that the Panathenaia was now particularly associated with this form of government and no other. The story of Harmodios and Aristogeiton was well known in antiquity, and so it remains for modern scholars. According to Thucydides’ narrative, the assassination of Hipparchos, the brother of the tyrant Hippias, took place because of a love affair.143 When Hipparchos made an unsuccessful pass at Harmodios, the latter’s lover Aristogeiton became angry and started plotting to overthrow the tyranny. They chose the Panathenaia (of 514 bc) as the occasion for their deed, but, on the day, thinking that they had been betrayed, they struck early and killed only Hipparchos. Harmodios died on the spot, while Aristogeiton managed to escape, but he was subsequently caught and put to death. Although they did not, in fact, end Hippias’ tyranny, the two men were quickly identified as Tyrannicides by the Athenians, who awarded them unprecedented honours: a cult and bronze statues in the Agora.144 The existence of the rituals has been generally accepted by scholars, but their occasion has been the subject of disagreement.145 As I have argued in more detail elsewhere, rather than connecting the cult with the Epitaphia, as many scholars have done, we should, in fact, associate it with the Panathenaia.146 143 144

145

146

Thuc. 6.53.3 59.1 and cf. 1.20.2; for other versions, see Hdt. 5.55 56.2; Arist. Ath. Pol. 18.2 6. Tyrannicides: e.g. Harmodios skolia PMG nos. 893, 895, 896 Ath. 15.695a b, nos. 10, 12, 13; Ar. Lys. 630 5; Andok. 1.96 8; Thuc. 1.20.2. Cult: Arist. Ath. Pol. 58.1; Dem. 19.280; Cic. Mil. 80. Statues: Plin. HN 34.17; Paus. 1.8.5; Arr. Anab. 3.16.7 8, 7.19.2; Val. Max. 2.10.ext. 1; Lucian, Philops. (34).18; IG XII.5 444 FGrHist 239, A54, lines 70 1. For the cult, see especially M. W. Taylor 1991: 5 8; Garland 1992: 94 6; Parker 1996: 123, 136 7; also e.g. Kearns 1989: 55, 150; Rausch 1999: 59 61; G. Anderson 2003: 202 4; Raaflaub 2003: 65; Parker 2011: 121. Shear 2012b; cf. Shear 2012c: 30 3. Epitaphia: e.g. A. Mommsen 1898: 302 3, 307; Deubner 1932: 320; Calabi Limentani 1976: 11 12, 26; M. W. Taylor 1991: 7 8 with earlier bibliography; Ermini 1997: 20; G. Anderson 2003: 202.

77

78

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

Our evidence for the occasion of the cult rests on two passages. According to Aristotle, the duties of the senior magistrate called the polemarchos (‘war-leader’) included the sacrifices for Artemis Agrotera and Enyalios, the funeral games (τὸν ἐπιτάφιον) for those who have died in war and the enagismata for Harmodios and Aristogeiton.147 The particular occasion for the cult of the Tyrannicides is provided by Philostratos in a passage in the Life of Apollonios of Tyana which refers to ‘the Attic Panathenaia, at which Harmodios and Aristogeiton are celebrated in song’.148 These songs are also mentioned in a cult context by Demosthenes and Cicero.149 Collectively, this evidence indicates that that rituals took place annually at the Panathenaia, the setting of the Tyrannicides’ deed and Harmodios’ death. Very likely, the rites took place on 28 Hekatombaion, the anniversary of the events.150 The connection between the cult and the festival is further reinforced by depictions of the Tyrannicides on Panathenaic prize amphorae from the end of the fifth century bc, by the design of their statue group set up in the Agora in 477/6 bc and by the influence of this figure of Aristogeiton on two vases showing the Gigantomachy and dated to the middle of the fifth century bc.151 On the basis of our written sources and our knowledge of how the Agora developed at the end of the sixth century, I have argued elsewhere that the cult must have been introduced between 508 and 500 bc, most likely in 507.152 Already in the Harmodios skolia or songs, which probably date to the late sixth century, the death of Hipparchos is equated with the killing of the tyrant and the gaps between the events in 514 bc, the fall of the tyranny in 511 and the institution of the Kleisthenic democracy in 508/7 are eliminated.153 In this way, Harmodios and Aristogeiton are depicted not only as tyrant-slayers, but also as the bringers of isonomia, of equal rights, and thus as the founders of the democracy. In two of these poems, the singer says that he will act just like Harmodios and Aristogeiton: the two heroes are already serving as the model of proper behaviour for good Athenians.154 After the Persian Wars, and probably already in the 470s, the imagery of the two men developed further, so that they were no longer 147

148 150 153

154

Arist. Ath. Pol. 58.1 (Chambers); repeated by Poll. Onom. 8.91; Shear 2012b: 108. Enagismata were sacrifices to the dead in which the offerings, in this case an animal, were totally destroyed; Ekroth 2002: 126 8. Philostr. VA 7.4.3 (Jones). 149 Dem. 19.280; Cic. Mil. 80; Shear 2012b: 109. Shear 2012b: 109. 151 Shear 2012b: 109 15. 152 Shear 2012c: 33 5. Harmodios skolia PMG nos. 893, 895, 896 Ath. 15.695a b, nos. 10, 12, 13. On the date, see Shear 2012c: 33 and note 25 with further bibliography. Harmodios skolia PMG nos. 893, 896 Ath. 15.695a b, nos. 10, 13; Lavelle 1993: 51; cf. Neer 2002: 18 19.

Festival and Story

just the institutors of democracy, but also the bringers of freedom to Athens.155 Together, the rituals at the Panathenaia and the statue group in the Agora made the Tyrannicides’ deed ever present for the Athenians. In this way, they regularly remembered that the heroes’ actions had overthrown the tyranny and established isonomia and democracy in the city.156 The costs of such actions were also brought out: maintaining this political system might require a citizen to fight and also to die on its behalf.157 Together, the cult and the monument in the marketplace also set up the two heroes as exemplars for the good Athenian: he was a democrat who modelled himself on the Tyrannicides.158 After 411, he might even have to become a tyrannicide himself.159 The addition of these rituals and their imagery to the Panathenaia contributed a new element to Athena’s festival: now, it not only celebrated the divine victory over the Giants, but it also commemorated the end of the tyranny and the establishment of democracy.160 With the cult, the Panathenaia became unique among the city’s rituals and festivities, because only this occasion marked these seminal events leading to the present in which Athenians currently lived. In this way, Athena’s celebration became the city’s festival which was most closely associated with the democracy.161 With this addition, the Panathenaia could never be just an opportunity for unproblematically glorifying all the Athenians, as the name might have suggested.162 Since the Tyrannicides served as models for the Athenians, the cult reinforced the importance of the festival as a place for creating identities for the inhabitants and especially for citizens.

Festival and Story The narratives connected with the Panathenaia, accordingly, present a very specific set of images which explained why the festival was held and also identified some important moments in its history. The occasion commemorated the gods’ victory in the Gigantomachy, an explanation which is not only closely linked to the first appearances of this battle in Attic vase painting, but also seems to have been introduced at the time of the reorganisation in 566. According to the city’s traditions, the celebration 155 158 159 160

Shear 2012c: 37 9 with further references. 156 Shear 2012b: 117. 157 Shear 2012c: 39. Shear 2012c: 40 2. Shear 2012c: 37 8, 42; cf. Shear 2011: 75, 112, 147, 318; Shear 2007b: 152, 160. Shear 2012b: 117. 161 Shear 2012b: 117. 162 Shear 2012b: 117.

79

80

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

was originally founded by Erichthonios, and it was later refounded by Theseus in connection with his unification of Attica. Special stories also existed for two contests in the games. The invention of the pyrrhiche was connected with Athena’s celebration of the divine victory against the Giants, while Erichthonios and the goddess first devised the apobatic race. Since both competitions were part of the games already in the later sixth century, it seems very likely that their stories had been invented by this time. In the case of the apobatic contest, our evidence suggests that the tradition about its invention was already common local knowledge in the early 550s, when Peisistratos drew on it as part of his second attempt to gain power. Collectively, these stories emphasise that the Panathenaia was a victory celebration, and they bring out a clear martial theme which reappears repeatedly throughout the festivities, as we shall see in the following chapters. At the same time, they focus attention on two signature competitions in which only Athenian citizens and citizens-to-be were eligible to compete. The stories, consequently, flag up the importance of participation, but they also bring out the differential nature of taking part in the proceedings. When the story of Theseus’ refoundation of the Panathenaia at the time of the unification of Attica was added to this complex, it further emphasised the importance of Athenian participation, while it also stressed that all Athenians took part together. This focus on active involvement is also brought out by the traditions connected with the cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton which was added to the festival at the end of the sixth century. In this case, the heroes’ actions were only possible because they were actively contributing to the procession: if they had simply been spectators, they would not have been able to carry their weapons without suspicion.163 The addition of this cult made the Panathenaia into the moment when the foundation of democracy was commemorated in ritual, so that the Athenians now celebrated one particular political system which became synonymous with the city.164 Since the way in which the city was ruled was of especial relevance only to her inhabitants, her colonists and her allies, the cult emphasised the differences between these groups and the visitors, who were marked as less important and less closely associated with the main elements of the festival.165 The addition of Theseus’ refoundation to the celebration’s stories reinforced this emphasis on democracy and internal unity. From the end of the sixth century, consequently, the festivities became particularly focused on 163 164

On this aspect, see Thuc. 6.56.2; contrast Arist. Ath. Pol. 18.4. Compare Shear 2012b: 118. 165 Shear 2012b: 117 18.

Festival and Story

Athenians and the rule of their demos, and we shall in in the following chapters how greatly the Panathenaia changed at this time. The stories connected with Erichthonios also concentrate on the issues of active involvement and identity. As the foster child of the goddess and (one of) the proto-Athenian(s), his story emphasised the importance both of participation and of close connections with the goddess. Indeed, since Athenians could be imagined as descended from Erichthonios, they, too, were the children of Athena.166 Their special status was particularly stressed in this context, and it marked them as different and more important than the inhabitants of other cities, which could not claim so distinguished a relationship. Since the hero had been born from the earth, his traditions emphasise the importance of autochthony and the literally native origins of the Athenians, another aspect which set them apart from people from other places in Greece. In turn, this stress on origins brings out the festival’s importance as a place for constructing Athenian identities, particularly through participation in the proceedings. The focus on the differences between the Athenians and the inhabitants of other cities contrasts with the emphasis on Athenian unity and exclusivity in the narratives about Theseus. The emphasis on autochthony was not limited to Erichthonios and his birth story, because the Panathenaia celebrated the divine defeat of the Giants, who were also sons of the earth (γηγενεῖς). Like all such figures, they were characterised by ambiguity and an uncertain and hubristic nature.167 In this particular festival context, they contrasted with Erichthonios, the autochthonous foster son of the goddess, who, by his very nature and upbringing, lacked the Giants’ typical character.168 This dynamic ought to have existed already at the beginning of the fifth century bc, when the first depictions of the hero’s birth appear in vase painting.169 Since Erichthonios’ connections with the festivities go back to at least the 560s, the contrast between the two different types of birth from the earth and their consequences presumably also date back to the middle of the sixth century. This evidence, together with the Athenians’ descent, at least in theory, from the hero, suggests that a form of Athenian autochthony was already nascent in the middle to second half of the sixth century, although it 166

167 168 169

Descent: Loraux 2000: 33; Bérard 1974: 34; cf. Shapiro 1998: 131 3; Lape 2010: 17; Loraux 1993: 46. Athena as true parent: Boedeker 1984: 111; Shapiro 1998: 135; cf. Loraux 1993: 64; Loraux 2000: 33, 35. Bérard 1974: 34 5; Loraux 1993: 51. For the general contrast between Erichthonios and the Giants, see Loraux 1993: 47 8. Above note 103.

81

82

The Mythologies of the Panathenaia

was not to reach its developed form until the second half of the fifth century.170 This native origin will have been particularly reinforced by the apobatic race and the pyrrhiche, both closely connected with the hero and the goddess and not open to non-Athenians. Collectively, these traditions in the context of the Panathenaia presented a particular image of what it meant to be an Athenian male citizen. Above all, one participated in the festival with all the other citizens and one especially took part in the two signature competitions in the games which required individuals to imitate the heroic founder and the goddess. Doing so brought out one’s autochthonous descent and close connection with the goddess and displayed some of the elements which set Athenians apart from the inhabitants of other cities. The martial flavour of these two events in the games also stressed that the good Athenian was prepared to fight on behalf of the city. With the addition of the cult for the Tyrannicides at the end of the sixth century, the image of the good Athenian was further sharpened. Now, the good citizen was a supporter of the rule of the demos who was also prepared to fight against tyranny; after 411, he might even have to kill tyrants himself. At the Panathenaia, the cult also brought out the high cost of maintaining the democracy: the good Athenian had to be prepared to die on its behalf.171 The emphasis on what it meant to be an Athenian in the various stories connected with the festival further stresses for us its importance as an occasion for creating identities for the city’s inhabitants. As these different elements show, which narrative got told when in the festival depended not only on the particular context, but also on the point being made, particularly the aspect(s) of identity being emphasised. At the same time, these different stories are also linked by a series of repeating themes and ideas which, in turn, serve to unify the celebration. They are hardly ‘entirely unrelated’ to each other. How they played out in the festival’s different spheres over time and how they created identities will be the focus of the following chapters, as we shall look first at the Little Panathenaia and then at the Great Panathenaia. 170

171

Developed form: Lape 2010; cf. Loraux 1993: 41. For origins of autochthony, see e.g. Montanari 1981: 54 7 (Kleisthenic); Rosivach 1987: 301, 305 (fifth century); Shapiro 1998: 131 3, 151 (archaic); Lape 2010: 17 (archaic). According to Kearns, autochthony also implies that the good citizen is prepared to fight and die for the city; Kearns 1989: 111 12.

3

The Little Panathenaia

The Little Panathenaia, like the penteteric version of the festivities, drew on the complex of stories which we discussed in Chapter 2; consequently, it commemorated the gods’ conquest of the Giants and it was at its core a victory celebration. Despite sharing this common background, it differed significantly from the Great Panathenaia in that it lacked both an elaborate cycle of games with an international audience and it also had a limited amount of colourful spectacle likely to appeal to visitors from elsewhere. Indeed, no foreign visitors are attested as having been present in the city for this version of the festivities. Most likely, they came for the penteteric celebration, just as most Athenians probably went to Olympia for the festival and games of Zeus, rather than at other times in the Olympic cycle. Consequently, the annual celebration focused on Athenians, so that it was an occasion when the city was displayed to herself, as it were. In contrast to the Great Panathenaia, the amount of evidence which can certainly be assigned to the little festival is quite limited. If the testimonia do not specifically mention either the Little or the Annual Panathenaia, then they can only be connected with this version of the celebration through the dates of the events which they mention; that is, they must concern the year of the little festival, and so they cannot refer to the penteteric festivities. Some of the literary sources, particularly from the scholia and the lexica, may, in fact, relate to both versions of the celebration, but we shall discuss them in the following chapters about the Great Panathenaia. For the annual festival, we are heavily dependent on a single source from the fourth century bc, a law and decree now preserved by two non-joining fragments which originally formed part of a large stele. The inscription began with the law which concerns a new source of funding for the little celebration: the revenue produced by leasing a recently acquired property called the Nea (ἡ Νέα).1 The second fragment preserves an amendment to a decree which the boule or council had presented to the 1

IG II3.1 447.1 25.

83

84

The Little Panathenaia

demos for consideration, and it focuses on the spending of this new source of revenue; consequently, it provides detailed regulations for conducting the festival, with a particular focus on the sacrifices.2 Since the dating formula of the law is only very partially preserved, the exact dates of our documents are unknown, although they are generally agreed to belong to the 330s bc.3 Further evidence ought to be provided by the Nea, but the location of this property remains contentious. The most plausible suggestion is that it lay in the territory of Oropos, which the Athenians acquired from Alexander after the sack of Thebes in 335.4 If this suggestion is correct, then the documents would appear to date to 335/4.5 The provisions laid out in this inscription were most likely in use by the end of the decade at the latest. Due to the chance survival of these fragments, we are best informed about the little festival in the 330s and 320s. Other sources, both literary and epigraphical, provide additional evidence for selected moments, and a number of inscribed fragments demonstrate that it was celebrated until at least about 100 bc. Previous scholarship has generally not attempted to separate out the evidence for the Little Panathenaia from that of the penteteric festival.6 When the two versions are discussed separately, the Great Panathenaia is the focus of the discussion, while the annual celebration is usually added on at the end.7 Such an approach obscures the differences between the two versions and makes it impossible to judge whether they shared the same dynamics and operated in the same way. Sorting out the admittedly meagre evidence for the little festivities shows that they were much less complex than the penteteric celebration and they focused on the sacrifices to Athena in her sanctuary on the Akropolis. Our evidence nicely brings out the importance of these offerings, which created and maintained reciprocal relations between the city and the divinity, but also provided opportunities 2

3

4

5 6

7

IG II3.1 447.26 62. Lines 33 4 demonstrate that we are dealing with an amendment. Since the text is broken off at the bottom, we do not know how much is missing or what subjects were originally covered. Such a date fits with the known activity of the mason who inscribed the text, the Cutter of IG II2 334, who was active between c. 345 and c. 320; Tracy 1995: 82. Oropos: L. Robert 1960: 194 201; Schwenk 1985: 84, 90 1; Sokolowski 1969: 65; Knoepfler 2001: 372, 387; Papazarkadas 2009: 179; Papazarkadas 2011: 22; Knoepfler 2010: 449 53; Knoepfler 2016: 189 92; cf. Parker 1996: 245; Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 400 1; Lambert 2005: 145 6. Other locations: Lewis 1959: 242 3; Langdon 1987: 55 8; O. Hansen 1989; Langdon 2016. Date of acquisition: Knoepfler 2001: 367 89; Knoepfler 2010: 449 51; cf. Papazarkadas 2009: 179. Compare Knoepfler 2001: 387; Knoepfler 2016: 187 92; contra: O. Hansen 1989: 72. E.g. A. Mommsen 1898: 41 159; Deubner 1932: 22 35; Parke 1977: 33 50; Simon 1983: 55 72; Neils 1992a; Larson 2016: 142 8. E.g. Ziehen 1949: 486 8; Parker 2005: 268 9.

The Sacrifices for Athena

for identity-making. The necessary animals and equipment were conveyed to the goddess in a procession which focused on Athenians and further served as an important moment for creating and displaying identities. Together with the pannychis, the all-night revel, this core presumably existed already in the middle of the sixth century. It received additional elaboration in the late second century bc, when a peplos began to be offered to the goddess, while, in at least the later fifth and fourth centuries bc, a very limited set of competitions was included in the programme for the Little Panathenaia. Since the contests were restricted to Athenians and certainly included contests in the pyrrhiche, they formed another venue for displaying and creating identities, both at the level of the individual and at the level of the subgroup. As we shall see, not all Athenians participated in the same way, and individuals from wealthier and more socially prominent parts of society were over-represented. In this way, they were marked out as exemplary individuals who should serve as models for other Athenians, who, at the same time, could imagine themselves as members of these socio-economic classes. These roles, and their associated identitymaking, concentrated on subgroups within the body of ‘all the Athenians’, instead of on the overall group. In this way, the Little Panathenaia focused on the local community rather than on displaying the city to external, nonAthenian visitors.

The Sacrifices for Athena Our best evidence for the Little Panathenaia concerns the sacrifices which were given to Athena, and their importance is brought out by the extensive section on them in the decree on the annual festival. Indeed, the law begins with the specification that the nomothetai have made their decision ‘[in order that] the sacrifice for Athena at [the L]ittle [Panathenaia might be] as beautif[ul] as possible and the income as gr[eat] as possible . . . ’.8 This explanation emphasises for us that immolating animals was the main focus of the occasion, the moment when the city’s offerings were presented to the goddess, who would accept them and continue to favour the city, or so the Athenians both hoped and expected. The actual process clearly displayed the ongoing relations between the 8

IG II3.1 447.5 6. Rhodes and Osborne have attractively restored lines 28 9 of the poorly preserved beginning of the amendment as κ|[αὶ γίγνηται ἡ θυσία π]αρεσκευ[ασμ]ένη ὡς ἄριστα, ‘a[nd (in order that) the sacrifice might take place] as well [p]repa[re]d as possible’; RO 81.28 9; cf. Lambert 2005: 146 7.

85

86

The Little Panathenaia

city and her goddess. As the focus of the occasion, the sacrifices are subsequently attested in other documents, and they mark the continuing vitality of the celebration through the late Hellenistic period. The city as a whole was not the only entity which presented such offerings to Athena: at least some of the city’s subgroups also immolated additional animals for her. In this way, they, too, created and maintained their relations with the goddess, while their actions were also displayed to all those present on the Akropolis. The decree on the Little Panathenaia calls for two sets of sacrifices: the offerings made to Athena Hygieia and in the ar[chaios neos],9 as they had been previously, and the cows purchased with the 41 mnai from the Nea which are to be given to Athena Polias on the Great Altar, except for the most beautiful one; this animal is to be immolated to Nike on her own altar.10 The meat which resulted from these two pairs of sacrifices was not treated in the same way (Table 3.1). What came from the first set was divided into portions and given to various officials with the customary distribution to the [kanephoroi]11 and the Athenians in the procession; the remainder was to be divided into portions for the Athenians. The meat from the second set was to be distributed to the Athenian demos in the [Kerameikos]12 ‘as at the other distributions of meat’, with portions going to each deme according to the number 9

10

11

12

For other possible restorations, see the apparatus criticus of RO 81 and the discussion on 401; Brulé 1996: 41 4; Knoepfler 2016: 162 4; cf. Schwenk 1985: 93. Whatever is restored here must fit the space on the inscription (nine letters) and topographically it must be on the Akropolis; cf. Herington 1955: 31 note 4. Supplements and usages which are otherwise unattested are also unlikely. The archaios neos or ancient temple is one of the standard ancient terms for the structure now known as the Erechtheion; e.g. D. Harris 1995: 201 2; Rosivach 1991: 433, 440; Paton and Stevens 1927: 465 78. First set: IG II3.1 447.34 42; second set: IG II3.1 447.42 53; cf. Brulé 1996: 41, 48. I remain unconvinced by Knoepfler’s attempt to restore lines 34 5 as τὰς μὲν δύο |[ἄρνας τήν τε τῆ]ι̣ Ἀθηνᾶι τῆι Ὑγιείαι; Knoepfler 2016: 158 64. Lambs are never attested as offered at this festival, the hero Erechtheus was not connected with the Panathenaia in any form and the epiboion required sheep, not lambs (οἶς in the accusative plural required here, which does not suit the space); on the epiboion, see below Chapter 4 with note 128. Nine letters, not including the terminal sigma, of a word in the dative plural must be restored at the beginning of line 41. Since the text at the end of line 40 indicates that this group must be female and they must otherwise be known to have been connected with the Panathenaia, the kanephoroi are the only possible restoration here; cf. Brulé 1996: 47. For the various proposed restorations, see Lambert’s commentary in IG II3.1. Of these places, only the Kerameikos has a clear connection with the festival as the place in which the procession started; see below Chapter 4. That large deposits of cattle bones dating to the 420s and to the beginning of the second century bc were excavated near the Pompeion and the Dipylon Gate supports this restoration; Hoepfner 1976: 16, 127, 220, with further references. The Pompeion was also clearly built for dining.

The Sacrifices for Athena

of demesmen in the procession (κατὰ [τ]|[οὺς πέμπον]τας).13 These regulations demonstrate that the sacrifices at the festival were considerably more complicated than we might have imagined. Rather than a single offering to Athena Polias, by the late 330s, victims were presented to Athena in several guises: as Hygieia, as Nike and as Polias. In this way, the sacrifices reflect the goddess’ main cults on the Akropolis, as well as three aspects which were most important for the city’s continued well-being.14 The recipient of the sacrifice in the ar[chaios neos] is not specified in the text, perhaps because the identity was expected to be obvious to readers. The location suggests Athena again, particularly because the other individuals associated with this structure, Erechtheus, Poseidon, Boutes and Hephaistos, are not known to have been connected with this festival.15 Chronologically and spatially, the offerings are unlikely to have been made in the order in which they are listed in the decree. Since there was only one procession, as the inscription makes clear, the order must have been dictated by the topography of the sanctuary.16 Athena Nike’s cow will have been offered first in her sanctuary on the bastion; following it was the animal for Athena Hygieia, which was sacrificed on her altar just east of the south-east corner of the main block of the Propylaia. The next offering ought to have taken place in the ar[chaios neos], while the largest number of animals will finally have been immolated on the Great Altar. At each of these points, the focus will have been on the Athenians as a corporate group and their relationship with the goddess. The importance of this connection ought to have been reinforced by the prayers which accompanied the sacrifices, because they will have stated that the demos of the Athenians was invoking Athena, as we shall see in more detail in Chapter 4. In contrast, when the meat was divided up, the differences between these Athenians would have been apparent: some individuals received extra portions because of their roles as officials of the city or of the goddess; others were only given meat as members of their demes. The distribution of the meat, consequently, brought out the differential participation of the Athenians and it put a focus on how exactly different members of the community participated in the proceedings. 13

14 16

On this process of division, cf. Brulé 1996: 55 7. For a parallel for the partially restored [πέμπον]τας, see Menander fr. 384 (PCG). I remain unpersuaded by Knoepfler’s attempt to restore lines 52 3 with the unparalleled κατὰ [τ]|[οὺς βουλευ]τάς, according to the number of councillors; Knoepfler 2016: 172 87. Cults: Parker 2005: 266. 15 Individuals: Paus. 1.26.5. Contra: Brulé 1996: 44 6. The decree specifies explicitly that the second set of sacrifices comes after the procession; IG II3.1 447.43 7; Parker 2005: 266 with note 58.

87

88

The Little Panathenaia

Further evidence for the sacrifices at this time is provided by the fragmentary accounts of the sales of the hides of sacrificial animals from a series of city festivals in the years between 334/3 and 331/0.17 For each year, the entries were originally listed in calendrical order and included the officials in charge of the occasion, along with the amount of money generated. Under the year 333/2, the Panathenaia has two entries: 61 drachmai and 3 obols from the hieropoioi or sacred overseers and 543 drachmai and 3 obols from the [hekatomb].18 Although the word hekatomb is restored, it is difficult to know what other word might be supplemented here, while comparison with the accounts of 332/1 indicates that the festival in question must be the Panathenaia.19 The entry for the celebration is also partially preserved for the year 332/1. It records a single sum from the hieropoioi which is now no longer extant; originally the stone had space for a maximum of three numerals.20 The different formats of the entries from these two successive years should be an issue of bookkeeping rather than an indication that the sacrifices at the festival were changed in 332/1.21 The amounts generated from these sales may be converted into animals: according to Vincent Rosivach’s arguments, each hide was worth between 4 and 10 drachmai.22 Thus, the first entry for 333/1 represents between about 6 and 15 cows and the second between roughly 54 and 135 animals. By comparison, the income of 41 mnai from the Nea is estimated to have bought perhaps about 50 animals.23 It is tempting, therefore, to understand the sums from the sales of two groups of hides in 333/1 as mapping on to the two sets of sacrifices in the decree on the Little Panathenaia.24 If this interpretation is correct, then the animals bought with the 41 mnai and offered on the Great Altar must be the

17 18

19 20

21 22

23

24

For a general introduction to this material, see Rosivach 1994: 48 65. IG II2 1496.98 101 with new readings from autopsy in line 101: [τῆς ἑκατόμβης]: . Of the dotted numerals, the following are visible: 500: left and right ends of crossbar and junction with right vertical; first delta: part of upper section of left diagonal and right diagonal; second delta: left diagonal and upper part of right diagonal; one obol: very bottom of vertical. Kirchner read: [τῆς ἑκατόμβης . . .] Compare IG II2 1496.129 30. IG II2 1496.129. Since the amounts from the hides of a particular festival vary significantly from year to year, it is hazardous to try to restore this amount. Compare Rosivach 1994: 50 1 note 104. Rosivach 1994: 62 3, 155 7; cf. Jameson 1998b: 107 12, who estimates 6 7 drachmai per hide. Naiden refuses to estimate, presumably because it would undermine his agenda of overthrowing the work of Burkert, Detienne and Vernant; Naiden 2013: 272 3. Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 401; cf. Tracy 2007: 54, who estimates 50 60 animals; Brulé 1996: 53 4 and McInerney 2010: 175, who estimate about 60 animals. Deubner 1932: 25 6; Schmitt Pantel 1992: 129; cf. Rosivach 1991: 433 5.

The Sacrifices for Athena

hekatomb given to the goddess at her festival.25 The number of animals actually purchased with the 41 mnai is irrelevant because, already in Homeric epic, the term hekatomb is used to describe a large sacrifice, rather than one which included exactly 100 victims.26 Together, our evidence from the 330s indicates that the Athenians were presenting significant numbers of animals for sacrifice at the Panathenaia, and they were making these offerings not just to Athena Polias, but also to the goddess in several other guises. After the 330s, our sources provide us with very little evidence for the sacrifices at the Little Panathenaia. They reappear briefly in 116/5 in the archonship of Serapion, when the ephebes of the archonship of Menoites were honoured for their activities, which included escorting the most beautiful sacrificial animal at the Panathenaia and at the Eleusinia.27 Since we are not told that this victim was provided by the ephebes themselves, it was probably part of the whole city’s offering. As such, it recalls the most beautiful cow which was being given to Athena Nike in the 330s. It suggests that this particular sacrifice may have continued to be made by the Athenians at the end of the second century. If this inference is correct, then we might imagine the animal also being offered in the intervening period and being accompanied by the other sacrifices which are prescribed in the amendment to the decree on the Little Panathenaia. The animals given to the goddess do not reappear in our sources after the late second century bc, although they presumably continued to be offered to her.28 While the law and decree on the Little Panathenaia concern the sacrifices made by the whole city to Athena, our sources indicate that they were not the only such offerings given at the festival. At least some individual subgroups of the Athenians were also presenting their own animals to the goddess in the classical period. Our earliest attestation of this practice 25

26

27

28

I do not find compelling Rosivach’s argument that the hekatomb is actually the sacrifice offered in the ar[chaios neos], because, as Brulé observes, the hekatomb should be immolated on the Great Altar; Rosivach 1991: 439 42; Brulé 1996: 40 note 7. LSJ9 s.v. ἑκατόμβη; cf. Jameson 1998a: 177; Naiden 2013: 263 4; contra: Rosivach 1994: 70 note 8. IG II2 1009 + Agora I 5952.27 8 Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 30.27 8. Since the ephebic year began in Boedromion, these ephebes (young men doing military training) took part in the festival of 116/5 (archonship of Serapion), not 117/6 (archonship of Menoites); for the ephebic year, see Pélékidis 1962: 215 19, 256; Chankowski 2014: 63 7. Unlike Ameling, I am not confident that the frequent sacrifices of 100 oxen which Herodes Atticus’ father made to the goddess were offered in the context of the Little Panathenaia; Philostr. VS 2.549; Ameling 1983 I: 33. In contrast to the next sentence, which records his activities at the Dionysia, no occasion for the immolations to Athena is given; most likely, they represent extraordinary occasions.

89

90

The Little Panathenaia

appears in a fragmentary sacred law of the deme Skambonidai which dates to about 460 bc. It specifies that, at the Dipolieia and the Panathenaia, the deme is to make the appropriate sacrifices and the meat is to be distributed in the agora of Skambonidai.29 Since the entry involves the annual festival of the Dipolieia as well as the celebration for Athena, it seems likely that the section about the Panathenaia concerns both the little and the penteteric festivities for the goddess. The deme itself was presumably responsible for providing the sacrifice, which must have been an offering in addition to whatever the city as a corporate group gave to Athena.30 The source of the victim further explains why it was distributed in the agora of Skambonidai, a decision which should have prevented non-demesmen from receiving a portion to which they were not entitled.31 In the 430s or 420s, we also find the deme of Thorikos sending a sheep to be sacrificed at Athena’s celebration.32 Since this calendar also specifies offerings for occasions such as the Prerosia, Hieros Gamos and Diasia, which were all held annually, the sheep must have been offered at both the Little and the Great Panathenaia.33 Once the victim was immolated, however, the meat was to be sold and not divided up among the members of the deme, possibly because attendance was imagined to be sparse.34 That demesmen did not receive meat from the sheep would have marked them and their local traditions as different from those of other demes such as Skambonidai which did distribute the flesh of their offering. When the sacrifices from Skambonidai and Thorikos were offered at the festival, the goddess will have been addressed in prayer and asked to accept the gift of the individual deme.35 In this way, the offering created and maintained relations between Athena and a specific subgroup in the city, which was also singled out from the corporate group of the Athenians. Since it was so important for humans to maintain good relations with the divine, it is very difficult to imagine that 29 30 31

32

33 34

35

IG I3 244A.15 21; cf. Osborne and Rhodes 2017: 46 7; contra: Mikalson 2016: 236 note 217. Compare Humphreys 2004: 146. We must imagine the members of Skambonidai receiving (at least) two separate shares: one in the deme’s agora as members of the deme and another as Athenians with the rest of the city, perhaps already in the [Kerameikos]. Since Skambonidai was a city deme, its members should not have had difficulty receiving their meat in two different places; on the location of the deme, see Traill 1986: 130, map. SEG L 55 right side 3 4; Jameson 1999: 330 note 32; cf. Lupu 2009: 510; Osborne and Rhodes 2017: 271. On the date, see Lupu 2009: 124 5; Humphreys 2004: 156; Matthaiou 2009: 205 6, 208. NGSL 1.13, 32, 34 5. Jameson 1999: 330 1; Osborne and Rhodes 2017: 273. On the meaning of πρατόν, see also Parker 1987: 145; Lupu 2009: 129 30. Perhaps the specification is also the result of economies required by the Peloponnesian War. On the relationship of prayers and sacrifices, see Furley 2007: 120 1; cf. Pulleyn 1997: 7 15.

The Sacrifices for Athena

Skambonidai and Thorikos were the only demes which made such sacrifices and thus drew the goddess’ attention to these particular subgroups. Most likely, all 139 demes, at the very least, wished to make some offering and so to stay in the good graces of the goddess. We must imagine many, if not all of them, giving whatever contribution was financially possible at a given annual celebration, even though our testimonia no longer include other traces of such sacrifices. The demes were not the only subgroups of the city to make their own offerings at the festival. At least one genos, the Salaminioi, was also presenting such a gift to Athena, as we learn from the decree of the genos which records the result of an arbitration between its two quarrelling branches in 363/2 bc. The list of sacrifices appended to the end of the document includes the specification that, in Hekatombaion, the genos is to immolate a pig at the Panathenaia.36 Since the list includes an offering to be made to Zeus Phratrios at the Apatouria, it must represent sacrifices offered every year;37 consequently, the Salaminioi would have presented their pig to the goddess at both the little and the great festivals. As with the sacrifices of Skambonidai and Thorikos, the pig of the Salaminioi created and maintained relations between the genos and Athena. Of course, if one genos was going to create such connections between itself and the goddess, then it behoved other gene also to entreat her to look on them with especial favour as members of their particular genos and not just as part of the corporate group of the Athenians. The animals may have varied according to the budget of the genos, and different gene of the sixty or so which are known may have offered a variety of sacrifices. Although the pig of the Salaminioi is only attested at the Little Panathenaia briefly in the middle of the fourth century, a reference in this inscription to sacrifices made according to the kyrbeis and irregularities in the spelling of Ion’s name in line 87 suggest that the offerings were considerably older and were copied from an earlier, probably archaic, source.38 As we shall see when we come to discuss the Great Panathenaia, additional evidence suggests that the Salaminioi were already presenting a pig to the goddess at the penteteric festival in the middle of the sixth century; at that time, the genos was probably also immolating a pig to her at the annual celebration. Our scattered evidence for the sacrifices at the Little Panathenaia, accordingly, provides us with the most information for the 330s bc, when offerings were presented to Athena not only as Polias, but also as 36 38

RO 37.88 9. 37 Apatouria: RO 37.92 3. Compare Lambert 1997: 92. The kyrbeis are objects of disputed appearance on which Solon’s laws were inscribed.

91

92

The Little Panathenaia

Hygieia and as Nike. The focus in the law and decree seems not to be on the introduction of new and additional victims for immolation, but rather on the consequences resulting from the leasing of the Nea, a new source of funding.39 Consequently, we must imagine the annual festival including offerings to Athena in multiple guises before we see them in the epigraphical record in the 330s. If the most beautiful sacrificial animal escorted by the ephebes of the archonship of Menoites in 116/5 has been correctly associated with the most beautiful cow for Athena Nike in the decree, then the offerings to the goddess in multiple guises continued to be made in the late second century bc. On at least some occasions in the classical period, the victims also included ones presented by individual demes and gene. All of these animals served to reinforce and continue the reciprocal relations between the goddess and ‘all the Athenians’, as well as at least some subgroups of the city. In this way, the offerings temporarily bridged the gap between human and divine. The focus of the sacrifices was not simply on divine–human relations, because they also brought out who was participating and how they did so. These dynamics appear particularly clearly in the decree on the Little Panathenaia, with its detailed specifications about how the different sacrifices were to be apportioned (Table 3.1). All the Athenians by deme were to receive meat from the sacrifices on the Great Altar and to Nike in proportion to the numbers of deme members in the procession. This method of division is an obvious one in democratic Athens, but, at the same time, it brings out the importance of having membership in a deme, something which set Athenians apart from individuals who were only briefly in the city as visitors. The meat from the other set of offerings, however, was divided differently, because portions were allocated to officials of the city and apparently to the Athenians in the procession and the [kanephoroi]. These shares were in addition to what these individuals would have received from the sacrifices on the Great Altar and to Nike. After they had all received their portions, the rest of the meat was given to ‘the Athenians’, but there may not really have been very much left over at this point; perhaps this final clause is intended to cover all eventualities.40 Thus, not all Athenians received the same amount of meat, and those who actively participated ended up with more than Athenians who had simply watched the proceedings. The Athenians who got extra shares from the city’s offerings did so not by virtue of their status in society, but because 39 40

E.g. Parker 1996: 245 note 98; Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 402 3; contra: Rosivach 1991: 439 40. Noting the distinction between μερίδες and κρέα, Brulé suggests that this meat went into the general distribution; Brulé 1996: 50 1.

The Sacrifices for Athena

they held office in the democratic system41 or, in the case of the [kanephoroi] and the Athenians in the procession, because they were serving the goddess. This system of distribution, accordingly, brings out the democratic nature of the city and the close links between it and the festival; it must have been instituted no earlier than the end of the sixth century, when the Kleisthenic democracy was invented. At the same time, at least some Athenians received further shares of meat because their deme, like Skambonidai in the 460s, or their genos, like the Salaminioi in the 360s, sacrificed an animal on behalf of the subgroup. Since these offerings focused on the relations between the deme or genos and the goddess, it seems likely that most such subgroups would, at the very least, have wished to immolate such an additional victim.42 When the meat was distributed in a different location from the meat of the city’s sacrifices, as in the case of Skambonidai, this special place will have focused attention on membership in the subgroup, rather than on membership in ‘all the Athenians’. In contrast, the absence of distribution to demesmen from Thorikos will have marked them out as different from, for example, members of Skambonidai. That some people were collecting meat at multiple sites and for multiple reasons will further have reinforced the importance of participating repeatedly in the events. The close connection between the sacrifices and status as an Athenian is further brought out by the decree’s repeated emphasis on the actions of Athenians.43 That such specification was necessary suggests that non-Athenians were also present. Some of them may have been temporary visitors, but the most obvious group in the 330s is the metics, who were clearly not receiving meat from the sacrifices, a decision which marked them out negatively when portions were distributed. Over the course of the sacrifices and the distribution of the meat, these dynamics did not remain stable. When the city’s victims were immolated, the focus at the moment was on ‘all the Athenians’ and their (corporate) relationship with the goddess, as the prayers brought out; at this moment, participation was not emphasised. In contrast, when the meat was distributed, the focus shifted towards participation and away from the goddess. When the animals of the subgroups were brought up for sacrifice, the prayers presumably mentioned the subgroups by name, and so the stress at that moment was on their particular relations with the goddess and not 41 42

43

Compare Schmitt Pantel 1992: 127. Thus, Naiden’s estimates of the amount of meat involved are too low, perhaps significantly so; Naiden 2013: 263, 266 7. IG II3.1 447.40, 41 2, 50.

93

94

The Little Panathenaia

on those of the whole city. Similarly, both the distribution of the meat from these offerings and the absence of such allocations will have brought out the importance in membership in the particular subgroup, rather than in the corporate group. Distributing the meat from sacrifices offered by different groups in different places will further have reinforced these dynamics about participation.

The Procession to the Goddess This focus on how and when different individuals took part in the festival is not limited to the sacrifices to the goddess; it is also visible in the procession which conveyed the animals and other necessary items and personnel to her on the Akropolis so that the offerings could be made and relations with the divinity maintained and continued.44 As with the immolations of animals, our fullest information comes from the late classical period, and it may be supplemented by a limited number of testimonia from the Hellenistic period. The emphasis in our sources is again specifically on Athenians, although there are indications that the metics were involved in at least some periods. Since the procession was not static, it changed as additional elements were introduced to the Little Panathenaia, a situation most visible in the late second century bc. When the decree on the Little Panathenaia lays out the ways in which the meat from sacrifices is to be apportioned, it singles out a series of officials who hold office within the democratic system, as we have already seen (Table 3.1). That they are identified in the text as recipients of special portions suggests that we need to imagine them as present at the sacrifices and, therefore, having marched in the procession to the Akropolis.45 The [kanephoroi] will also have had an important role in both parts of the proceedings, as they normally did, because their baskets included the sacrificial knife and other items necessary for the sacrifices.46 As the decree makes clear, some Athenians took part in the procession; since the meat distributed in the [Kerameikos] was given out by deme, it seems likely that the Athenians in the procession were also organised in this way. They presumably were armed and represented the city’s military contingents, hence the presence of the generals and taxiarchoi among the recipients of the sacrifices to Athena Hygieia and in the ar[chaios neos]. Since the 44 45

For this role of processions, cf. Parker 2005: 179 80; Graf 1996: 57 8; Kavoulaki 1999: 295. Compare Parker 2005: 260. 46 Parker 2005: 223 4; Dillon 2002: 38.

The Procession to the Goddess

taxiarchoi commanded their tribe’s regiment in the city’s military system, the Athenians must have been organised in the procession both by deme and by tribe.47 At the same time, the decree draws a distinction in this section between Athenians processing and the demos of the Athenians: not every Athenian took part in the procession, and some of them only watched their fellow citizens participating.48 The specification in the first set of sacrifices that the Athenians taking part in the procession are to receive the accustomed amount implies, as Robert Parker has rightly noted, that some non-Athenians also were included at this point.49 Since these nonAthenians are not otherwise relevant to the decree, their roles remain unspecified. As we shall see in the following chapter, at the Great Panathenaia, some metics carried trays, and some daughters of metics carried hydriai, parasols and/or stools; they remain the most obvious candidates for non-Athenians in the procession. All these humans will, of course, have been joined by the sacrificial animals of both the city and her subgroups which the whole process was designed to convey to the sanctuary. Since the animals of the different subgroups such as Skambonidai, Thorikos and the Salaminioi cannot have processed on their own, we must imagine them being accompanied by at least a few members of those groups. Further information is provided by a number of other sources. A brief fragment from one of Menander’s comedies indicates that the procession passed through the Agora, which served as a good place to watch other people processing.50 Most likely, it followed the same route as that used for the Great Panathenaia, so that it started at the Dipylon Gate in the Kerameikos and followed the Panathenaic Way through the Agora, by the Eleusinion and up to the Akropolis.51 Since the ephebes of the archonship of Menoites specifically escorted the most beautiful sacrificial animal, and they also brought an aristeion, a reward for valour and military excellence, they, too, must have taken part in the procession in 116/5.52 This passage in their honorary decree is the only occasion when the ephebes are positively attested at the Little Panathenaia, presumably because their activities went beyond what was normal and accustomed. It seems likely that they were regularly included as a separate contingent in 47 48 49 51 52

Duties of the taxiarchoi: Arist. Ath. Pol. 61.3. IG II3.1 447.50, 52 3; cf. Men. fr. 384 (PCG). Parker 2005: 268 with note 70; cf. Knoepfler 2016: 166. 50 Men. fr. 384 (PCG). Below Chapter 4. Above note 27. Presumably they dedicated the aristeion, which may have been a gold crown, to the goddess.

95

96

The Little Panathenaia

the procession, as they seem to have been at the Great Panathenaia at this time, but this activity was not normally mentioned in the documents honouring them. If this suggestion is correct, then their presence may go back to the 370s, when the ephebeia was invented.53 Certainly, their participation would have been appropriate at a festival celebrating the divine victory over the Giants. If they and their officers wore their armour in the procession, then their equipment would have brought out the celebration’s martial theme. Similarly, it would have been quite appropriate if the generals and taxiarchoi mentioned in the decree on the Little Panathenaia and contingents which they commanded were also so equipped. In the late second century bc, we learn for the first time that ‘the maidens [who wo]rked the wool [for th]e peplos for Athena’ were taking part in the procession of the Little Panathenaia and were honoured for their activities later in the same year.54 They are positively attested for the annual festivals of 108/7 and 103/2, and the names of part of a third group, which belongs about 100 bc, are also known.55 Since it has been estimated that about 120 girls were involved each year in working the wool for the peplos,56 they represented a sizable contingent in the procession to the Akropolis. As we shall see below in more detail, these maidens must have been a very new addition to the annual celebration in 108/7, and their presence reflects the decision to start dedicating the peplos to the goddess on an annual basis. For us, they nicely bring out how changes in one aspect of the festivities might affect other parts of the overall event. Collectively, our evidence for the procession provides us with the most information for the later classical period, when the provisions in the decree 53

54

55 56

The ephebeia must have been invented by c. 372, when Aischines, who seems to have been born c. 390, served for two years; Aischin. 2.167; Kennell 2013: 16; E. M. Harris 1988; Fisher 2001: 10 12. As Nigel Kennell has pointed out to me, the use of age classes for calling up Athenians for military service should have been introduced with the ephebeia; cf. Chankowski 2014: 19; contra: Christ 2001: 417. In 352/1, the Athenians voted to call up men up to the age of forty five; Dem. 3.4; Kennell 2013: 20. Men who were aged forty four in 352/1 would have been eighteen in 378/7. Kennell dates the beginning of the ephebeia between 383 and 373; Kennell 2009b: 324; cf. Chankowski 2014: 19 (between 386 and 372). For the system of conscription by age class, see Christ 2001: 409 20. IG II2 1034.7 8, 10 12 (103/2); SEG LIII 143.b11 12, 13 14 (108/7). The quotation is from IG II2 1034.7 8; on the date of this inscription, see Meritt 1977: 187. Since the peplos is only connected with the Panathenaia and the agonothetes of the Panathenaia is mentioned in SEG LIII 143.b22 3, the procession must be that of Athena’s festival. These girls are probably the ergastinai mentioned by Hsch. s.v. ἐργαστῖναι; Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 76; Tracy 2007: 54; Mikalson 1998: 256 8; Dillon 2002: 58; Deshours 2011: 135 6. 108/7: SEG LIII 143.b27 86; 103/2: IG II2 1034.d1 34 + 1943; c. 100: IG II2 1942. Tracy 1990: 219; Mikalson 1998: 257; Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 85.

The Procession to the Goddess

on the Little Panathenaia were in force and a significant number of the city’s officials were involved. Contingents from at least some of the demes and gene will have been escorting their subgroups’ offerings to the goddess. At the same time, our evidence shows that the elements of the parade were not permanently set, so that the procession could change over time, as certainly happened in the late second century, when the girls involved in making the peplos started being included. In at least 116/5, the ephebes were also marching together with the most beautiful sacrificial animal and an aristeion; presumably the ephebes began being included in the 370s. Our testimonia focus on Athenians, both officials of the city and the sanctuary, and ordinary individuals, but non-Athenians also seem to have been involved in the late classical period. They were most probably metics and perhaps their daughters. In this way, the metics, as long-term residents of the city, were included among ‘all the Athenians’, but they were also marked out as different from the citizens by the particular roles which they filled. The provisions of the decree, together with the fragment of Menander, indicate that not all Athenians marched in the parade; some, probably the majority, stood and watched their fellow citizens. This dynamic brings out the importance of participation, even if it was only to escort the offering of one’s subgroup. The procession, consequently, presented the community to itself. It did not, however, do so evenly. The holders of the city’s offices and officials connected with the sanctuary are all represented; after the introduction of the Kleisthenic system, the former inevitably emphasised that the city was ruled by the demos. This situation will have been reinforced by the contingents of ordinary Athenians who either seem to have marched with their fellow demesmen and tribesmen or escorted the offerings of their demes or other subgroups. Our sources are silent about the ordering of these contingents representing the demes. Since, in epigraphical sources, lists of Athenians are regularly organised by deme and in tribal order, it seems likely that the same ordering principle was used here; it would certainly have made it easy to tell whether or not a particular deme was present and, by the late 330s, it would have been extremely familiar to everyone. Both the ephebes and the girls working the wool for the peplos are listed in their honorary decrees by tribe and by deme; very likely they, too, were so organised in the procession. The members of the gene, however, were very unlikely to be representative of the average Athenian; instead, they were part of the city’s higher social and economic strata. In the late second century, when we know that both the ephebes and the girls making the peplos were marching in the procession, the focus on this part of the city

97

98

The Little Panathenaia

will have been particularly noticeable, because both of these groups belonged disproportionately to these classes of Athenian society.57 Even in the democratic city, high status made participation in the proceedings more likely, and the image presented, consequently, suggested that being an individual of high social and economic standing was the norm and not the exception, as reality will have indicated.

Revels for the Goddess: The Pannychis The sacrifices and the procession were not the only elements which formed the core of the Little Panathenaia. Among its other clauses, the decree on the annual celebration specifies that the hieropoioi are ‘to make the pa[nnychis] as beautiful as possible for the goddess’.58 The proceedings, consequently, included an all-night revel in honour of Athena, but this aspect of the festivities is only positively attested in our fourth-century decree. This element was evidently thought to be easily intelligible to the readers of the text, hence the absence of details, but this lack of specificity has occasioned a certain amount of scholarly controversy about the timing of the event within the overall proceedings. In the decree, the revel first appears in the context of expenditures: 50 drachmai are to be spent on the expenses of the procession, the butchers’ fee, the adornment of the great altar and whatever else is appropriate ‘for the festival and the pannychis’.59 The text then continues with the requirement that hieropoioi are ‘to make the pa[nnychis] as beautiful as possible for the goddess and to dispa[tch] the procession [at s]unrise’.60 This second passage has suggested to many scholars that the all-night revel actually preceded the sacrifices on 28 Hekatombaion.61 The first passage, however, mentions the two elements in the opposite order;62 it is not, therefore, necessary to conclude the revel came before the sacrifice. By comparison, the pannychis at the Bendideia followed the main part of that festival, which consisted of the procession and then presumably the sacrifices.63 Indeed, Kendrick Pritchett has shown that normally all-night revels follow the immolation of victims rather than preceding them and, therefore, at the 57

58 61

62

Brulé 1988: 102, 103 4; Mikalson 1998: 257; Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 85; for the ephebes, see Perrin Saminadayar 2007: 397 405. IG II3.1 447.57 9. 59 IG II3.1 447.53 7. 60 IG II3.1 447.57 60. E.g. Deubner 1932: 24; Davison 1958: 25; Parke 1977: 49 50; Neils 1992a: 15; Robertson 1992: 108 9, 114; Parker 2005: 257. Pritchett 1987: 181 2. 63 Pl. Resp. 1.327a1 b2, 328a1 b1.

The Annual Peplos

Panathenaia, the pannychis must also have taken place after the sacrifices.64 Since the immolations of animals would have produced meat for the feast, it is easy to understand how the all-night revel might have developed out of the events after the offering of the animals to the divinity and the subsequent feasting. These references in the decree about the Little Panathenaia provide our only certain evidence for the pannychis at the annual festival. Typically, such occasions involve maiden choruses.65 Indeed, the only other reference which may be connected with the all-night revel at the Panathenaia refers specifically to the loud joyful cries (ololygmata) and the beating of maidens’ feet all night long on the windy hill.66 This passage is regularly associated with the Panathenaia because the chorus of men from Marathon asks Athena to remember sacrifices made to her on the waning day of the month, but, since the reference is generic, it is impossible to know whether it refers to the annual or the penteteric festival or to both occasions.67 We should imagine the pannychis at the little celebration as including maiden choruses, and their songs may well have been a venue for narrating some of the festival’s stories which we discussed in Chapter 2. This all-night revel is mentioned without description in the decree, as if everyone will know exactly what it is. Consequently, it cannot have been a new addition to the proceedings in the 330s, and it is likely that it was well established by this time, hence perhaps the reference in Euripides’ play. When the decree was passed, this revel, together with the procession and sacrifices, certainly formed the core of the occasion.

A Gift for the Goddess: The Annual Peplos In the late fourth century, the Little Panathenaia consisted primarily of the procession, sacrifices, pannychis and several tribal contests which we shall discuss shortly. Our limited evidence for the earlier part of the Hellenistic period suggests that it continued to have this form in the third and second centuries bc. During this period, the peplos was dedicated only at the 64 65

66 67

Pritchett 1987: 186 8; cf. Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 402. See Parker 2005: 166, 182 3. As Parker notes, at least eleven ‘state festivals’ included a pannychis. Eur. Herakl. 777 83. Connection with Panathenaia: see e.g. Wilkins 1993: 151; Allan 2001: 192 3; Parker 2005: 182, 257; contra: Pritchett 1987: 183 4. I note that the sacrifices are mentioned in this passage before the all night revel.

99

100

The Little Panathenaia

penteteric festival.68 At some point, however, this situation changed, because in the late second century, as we have already noted, the girls who worked the wool for the robe were taking part in the procession of the annual festival. Our epigraphical evidence suggests that the peplos began to be offered to the goddess shortly before these maidens are first attested in 108/7 bc. This practice continued long enough for the dedication of this robe to be picked up by the sources for some of our scholia which refer to such garments in the context of both the annual and the penteteric celebrations. When the decree honouring the maidens who worked the wool for the peplos was inscribed in 108/7, it was placed on a stele below an existing document which is now only very fragmentarily preserved.69 It certainly contains references to the athlothetai, females who worked the peplos well, an olive-leaf crown which the demos is presumably going to award to these females, the agonothetes and the procession, the [Praxiergi]dai70 who are to ‘take over the year’s peplos (τὸν ἐφέτειον π̣έπ̣λ[ο]ν)’ and the handing over of some item to female individuals. The largest conundrum in this section is caused by the word ἐφέτειος, which can mean ‘annual’, ‘this year’s’ and ‘the current year’s’.71 If it means ‘annual’, then we would have to assume that there was a clear distinction between the peplos given at the penteteric festival and the one presented in other years, but our testimonia do not obviously suggest such a distinction. Rather, we seem to be dealing with a differentiation between the robe of the current year and the one(s) from the previous year(s).72 Such an interpretation fits with the rest of the text, which seems to contain general regulations for the peplos and the girls who made it.73 The second text on the stone recorded the honours for the girls of a specific year as prescribed in the first text, which concerned every year.74 The girls’ participation in the procession of what was clearly the Little Panathenaia suggests that their garment was not presented to the goddess 68 70 71

72 73

74

Below Chapter 4. 69 First decree: SEG LIII 143.a1 b6; decree for girls: SEG LIII 143.b7 86. On the restoration, see Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 71; B. Nagy 1978: 140. LSJ9 s.v. ἐπέτειος, ἐφέτειος; Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 72; see also Robertson 2004a: 145 note 93. Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 72. Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 70. It is thus unlikely that ἐφέτειος means ‘this year’s’, as Aleshire and Lambert note; Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 72; contra: Parker 2005: 269 note 71. I remain unpersuaded by Robertson’s attempt to associate SEG LIII 143.b1 4 with the Kallynteria and to disassociate the first decree from the girls of the second decree; Robertson 2004a: 139 48. His claim that the very fragmentary first decree actually honoured the women who made the peplos is simply not supported by any ancient evidence for such women. Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 70. The regulations mentioned in SEG LIII 143.b13, 14 will be to the first decree on the stele.

The Annual Peplos

at the penteteric festival, but at the annual celebration of 108/7. This observation, together with the reference to the current year’s peplos, should indicate that, by the late second century, the robe was being dedicated to the goddess on an annual basis.75 As we shall see when we discuss the Great Panathenaia, the garment was associated only with the penteteric celebration until as late as 142 bc; the annual robe, consequently, must have been introduced at some later time between about 140 and 108/7 bc.76 In order for the garment to have been ready for dedication at the little festival of 108, its manufacture must have begun in the preceding year in 109/8: our lexicographical sources specify that the loom for the peplos was set up by ‘the priestesses’ with the arrhephoroi at the Chalkeia at the end of Pyanopsion, the fourth month of the year and nine months before the goddess’ festival in the following year.77 Enough time had to be left after the decree was passed for the girls to be selected and for all the new arrangements to be put in place. For this reason, it seems likely that the document authorising these changes can have been approved by the demos no later than 110/9.78 Since the decree honouring the girls who produced the peplos for the festival of 108 was inscribed under the authorising decree, it most probably belongs very soon after the changes were instituted. Perhaps they were even the first group girls to make the annual peplos, hence the stele chosen for the inscription of their honorary decree. In subsequent years, other robes were made by further groups of girls and dedicated to the goddess at the annual celebration. At least two groups were then honoured for their contributions, as we know from their surviving honorary inscriptions, and the texts of the general regulations suggests that such rewards were to be the norm.79 75

76

77

78

79

So also Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 77; Tracy 2007: 54; Deshours 2011: 134, 136; cf. A. Mommsen 1898: 112 13; contra: Deubner 1932: 30; Ziehen 1949: 487; Parker 2005: 269 note 71. The manuscripts of Diodoros 20.46.2 report that Antigonos and his son Demetrios were to be woven into the peplos of Athena every year (εἰς τὸν τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς πέπλον κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτόν), but editors have deleted the words κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτόν because the phrase seems repeated from earlier in the same sentence; see the apparatus criticus of the Teubner edition; cf. Geer 1954: 268; Deubner 1932: 30; Ziehen 1949: 487; Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 72 note 7. Suda, Etym. Magn. s.v. Χαλκεῖα; cf. Harp. s.v. ἀρρηφορεῖν; Parker 2005: 219; Donnay 1997: 185 6; Dillon 2002: 57 8. On the date, see also Aleshire and Lambert 2003: 70; cf. Deshours 2011: 134 5. Since the decree seems to prescribe crowns for the girls, and crowns were not awarded to women before the third century at Athens, I do not see how this document can represent a revival of a Lykourgan period regulation, as Aleshire and Lambert would evidently like to imagine. Crowns for women: e.g. IG II2 776 IG II3.1 1026; SEG XXXIII 115 IG II3.1 1002. Above note 55.

101

102

The Little Panathenaia

The annual peplos is also mentioned by our scholiastic sources. In two adjacent entries, the scholia on Aristophanes’ Knights report that there were two robes: one which was prepared every four years as the rigging on the ship (τὸ ἄρμενον τῆς Παναθηναϊκῆς νεώς) and was conveyed in the procession from the Kerameikos to the Eleusinion, and a second which showed Enkelados the Giant and was prepared every year; its transport is not explained.80 The two passages probably did not originally belong together, because the entry about the great festival is written in the present tense, while the one about the annual celebration is in the imperfect tense, and it is introduced by the word ἄλλως, ‘alternatively’.81 Consequently, they need not represent the same periods or phases in the Panathenaia’s history. The scholia on Plato’s Republic also mention two peploi: one was decorated with the Gigantomachy and was presented at the penteteric festival, while the second was dedicated to the goddess at the Little Panathenaia in the Peiraieus (sic) and showed the Athenians being nourished by the goddess and winning the war against the people of Atlantis; the scholiast then reports that the Little Panathenaia followed the so-called Bendideia.82 The reliability of this information is open to question, because the little festival was certainly not held in the Peiraieus, and it did not follow the Bendideia on 19 Thargelion. The whole passage is written in the imperfect tense, and its information seems to be drawn largely from Proklos’ Commentary on Plato’s Timaios, a work which was clearly written after the festivities ceased to be part of living memory, as we saw in Chapter 1.83 This section of the scholia on the Republic, consequently, must be used with great caution. In contrast, the scholia on the Knights do not suffer from these problems, and they serve to confirm the epigraphical evidence from the late second century. Our meagre sources suggest, consequently, that, in the late second century bc, the Athenians decided to start dedicating a peplos to Athena at the Little Panathenaia, as well as every five years at the great festival. This garment, too, was decorated with the Gigantomachy, and it must, in fact, have been very similar to the familiar robe of the penteteric celebration. The legislation which introduced this change to the annual festivities is now preserved by the very fragmentary first decree of SEG LIII 143. In 80

81 82

83

Schol. Ar. Knights 566a (I II). This information was subsequently repeated by Triclinius: schol. Ar. Knights 566c and Suda s.v. πέπλος. Note that these texts do not describe the peplos as a sail (ἱστίον) for the ship. On this use of ἄλλως, see Dickey 2007: 108 9. Schol. Pl. Resp. 1.327a; cf. Prokl. In Ti. 1.26e 27a. On the implausibility of celebrating the Panathenaia, a festival of unity, in the demes, see Parker 1987: 140 1. Prokl. In Ti. 1.26e 27a; above Chapter 1.

Competitions and the Little Panathenaia

order for the provisions to be put into place in time for a robe to be dedicated at the festival of 108/7, the change must have been made no later than 110/9; there is no indication that it was introduced much earlier than this year. Adding a peplos to the Little Panathenaia marked a significant change in the proceedings, but our sources are silent on the reasons for this addition. Certainly, after Athens regained the island of Delos in 167, the city’s economy improved significantly. With increasing prosperity, the Athenians were in a position to spend more money on Athena and to thank her for all her help and support. At the same time, the introduction of the annual robe would have made the little festival more similar to the penteteric version, with more of the spectacle likely to draw visitors from abroad. Manufacturing the peplos would now have required many more girls, because it had to be done every year, and so the opportunities for them to serve the goddess increased significantly, a fact which was probably not lost on Athenian families of great wealth and high social standing when this change was being discussed in the council and the assembly. The introduction of the annual robe, accordingly, had multiple benefits for the Athenians, and so it is difficult to imagine why such a lovely gift for the goddess should not have been added to the proceedings, as our testimonia suggest that it was.

Competitions and the Little Panathenaia All our evidence for the annual Panathenaia indicates that the procession, sacrifices and pannychis formed the core of the festivities, but the proceedings were not limited to them: they also included a small number of competitions. Unlike the extensive cycle of games which was a distinctive feature of the Great Panathenaia, these events at the annual celebration were only open to Athenians, who competed not as individuals, but as part of their tribal teams, that is, as part of the regular subgroups of the Kleisthenic system.84 Delimited in these ways, these contests will have reinforced the focus on Athenians citizens which we have already seen with the sacrifices and procession. Not all of the tribal events of the penteteric games were included; instead, Athenians competed only in the cyclic chorus and the pyrrhiche. These competitions are attested for a very limited period of time between the late fifth and the late fourth century bc.

84

On these distinctions, see the helpful comments of Tracy 2007: 54 7.

103

104

The Little Panathenaia

The games at the annual festival were already part of the proceedings in 415, when they appear in Andokides’ narrative of the events surrounding the mutilation of the Herms and the profanation of the Mysteries. Two of the informers who provided information about the profanation of the Mysteries received rewards voted by the Athenian demos ‘at the games of the Panathenaia’.85 Since the profanation of the Mysteries came to light just before the fleet sailed for Sicily late in the official year of 416/5, the festival in question must be the Little Panathenaia of 415/4.86 Of course, Andokides’ point in this passage was to document exactly what had happened and what his role in the events had been; from this perspective, the actual contests in the games were irrelevant, and so they do not appear in his text. Other testimonia, however, provide us with more details about the competitions. The young man bragging in court whom we met in Chapter 1 was concerned to summarise his liturgical record and to demonstrate just how much money he had spent on each occasion. Since he wanted to emphasise his contributions over time, he included archon dates for the expenditures. Consequently, we know that he spent 300 drachmai for a cyclic chorus at Athena’s festival in the archonship of Diokles in 409/8.87 The speaker is careful to note when the teams which he sponsored won, and so we also know that he did not win this competition at the Little Panathenaia. As recent discussion has elucidated, the cyclic chorus seems to have consisted of a chorus dancing in a circular fashion and singing songs which included not only the dithyramb, but also other poetic forms.88 Since we tend to associate such performances with the Dionysia, they might initially seem out of place at Athena’s festival, but, at Athens, such competitions were also held at the Thargelia, which honoured Apollo, and the Prometheia and Hephaisteia.89 In this city, they were an important way of honouring a divinity in song and, as such, an appropriate part of Athena’s festival. The competitions for Dionysos and Apollo were certainly tribally organised and the decree of Pandionis requiring the listing of all victorious choregoi in these contests and the Prometheia and the Hephaisteia shows that choral events in all four festivals were tribally 85 86

87 88 89

Andok. 1.28. Panathenaia: cf. MacDowell 1962: 83; M. Edwards 1995: 169. Fleet: Isai. 6.14; cf. Thuc. 6.30.1. On the dates of events in the summer of 415, see MacDowell 1962: 186 9; Gomme, Andrewes and Dover 1970: 271 6. Lys. 21.2. For a helpful table of the speaker’s expenses, see Todd 2000: 230 table 21.1. Ceccarelli 2013; cf. Kowalzig and Wilson 2013a: 16; D’Alessio 2013: 116, 122. Other competitions: [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 3.4; IG II2 1138.9 11; Ieranò 1997: 247 9, 250 2; P. Wilson 2000: 32 5. Since these two ancient passages were ignored by Makres, she can thus erroneously claim that the cyclic chorus was only performed at the Dionysia, Thargelia and Panathenaia and that ‘there is no evidence for choral competition at either the Prometheia or the Hephaisteia’; Makres 2009: 241, 243. On the passage from [Xenophon], see further below.

Competitions and the Little Panathenaia

organised.90 This evidence suggests that, in the parallel contests at the Panathenaia, participants represented their tribes; as in the other four festivals, boys and men probably competed in separate events.91 Additionally, more general evidence is provided by the pseudo-Xenophontic Athenaion Politeia, which reports that the Athenians have to adjudicate over the appointment of choregoi ‘at the Dionysia and the Thargelia and the Panathenaia and the Prometheia and the Hephaisteia every year’.92 As presented here, all these choruses seem to be cyclic,93 and they were certainly annual. Both versions of the Panathenaia, consequently, must have included such contests when this passage was written, probably in the 420s.94 Perhaps competitions for cyclic choruses were added to the annual festival when the musical contests were revived at the penteteric celebration in 446/5.95 Such a scenario would also explain Euripides’ reference to choral songs in connection with the waning day of the month in the chorus of the Herakleidai.96 After the end of the fifth century, the history of this event is obscure, because it is not positively attested in our testimonia.97 That it was not included in the decree of Pandionis, which

90

91

92 93

94

95 97

IG II2 1138.9 14. Since the text does not distinguish between the contests at the Prometheia and Hephaisteia and those at the Dionysia and Thargelia, they must all be choral; cf. P. Wilson 2000: 35. For group competitions, tribal representation at Athens seems to be the norm rather than the exception; see further Chapter 8 below. The dramatic contests are the exception to this rule, but, by the 330s, comedy at the Dionysia had become tribal; below Chapter 5 note 122. Of course, there were never ten entries at either the City Dionysia or the Lenaia, and so tribal representation was not possible; perhaps the expense was prohibitive. [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 3.4. Unless we are to understand ‘choregoi’ as actually meaning ‘choregoi and gymnasiarchoi’; Davies 1967: 35 6; cf. P. Wilson 2000: 35; Parker 2005: 472; Marr and Rhodes 2008: 150. The evidence of IG II2 1138.5 6, 9 11, however, suggests that this view is erroneous. The date of this work is contentious. Most scholars prefer a date in the 420s; e.g. Forrest 1970; de Ste. Croix 1972: 307 10; Mattingly 1997: 352; R. Osborne 2004: 4 10; Marr and Rhodes 2008: 3 6 and cf. 31 2; for a date in the 440s, see Bowersock 1966: 33 8; for late dates, see Tuci 2011 (c. 415); Mattingly 1997 (414); Hornblower 2000: 363 76 (380s). See below Chapter 5. 96 Eur. Herakl. 778 80. Since regretfully I cannot subscribe to the elaborate four block confection which Makres has created out of Atarbos’ base (SEG LIII 202 IG II3.4 435), I remain unconvinced that the extant left block commemorated a victory with a cyclic chorus at the Panathenaia in 323/2, as Makres wishes to believe; Makres 2009; contra: Shear 2003a: 165 6, 168 9, 173. Her ingenious suggestion that the inscriptions were prefabricated lacks any parallel. It is certainly good to know that the ‘grey matter’ on the upper surface of the extant right block is ‘cement which belongs to modern times’, but this identification does not prove that the base only had one phase, as Makres seems to think; Makres 2009: 243 4. Rather, this evidence demonstrates that the monument’s history and conservation are even more complicated than we had hitherto believed; for its phases, see Shear 2003a: 168 9; cf. Goette 2007b: 122 3; Keesling 2007: 158 note 34, although I do not share her understanding of the first phase. Further discussion of this monument lies beyond the scope of this chapter.

105

106

The Little Panathenaia

requires the names of victorious choregoi to be inscribed, may indicate that the competition had fallen into abeyance in the early fourth century.98 A second competition at the Little Panathenaia is also mentioned by our boastful young man. At the end of his list of liturgies, he reports that, ‘in the archonship of Eukleides (403/2 bc), as choregos for comedy, I won with [a play by] Kephisodoros and I spent, with the dedication of the equipment, 16 mnai and, at the Little Panathenaia, I was choregos for beardless pyrrhichistai and I spent 7 mnai’.99 Although the Lenaia and the Dionysia, the two festivals which included contests for comedies, took place later in the official year than the Panathenaia, the reference to the little celebration and the absence of either an archon’s name or some other indication of time suggest that the festivities concerned were those of 403/2.100 They certainly cannot have been those of 402/1, because that festival was the Great Panathenaia. Since the speaker describes himself as the choregos, it appears that, as at the penteteric festival, the pyrrhichistai competed by tribe.101 These particular contestants were beardless youths, young men too old to be called boys, but not yet old enough to be considered adult men.102 That a specific event for them existed in the Little Panathenaia should indicate that there were also divisions for boys and men, as there were at the penteteric festivities. This contest continued to be held at the little celebration, as we know from the victory monument of a certain Atarbos of Thorikos.103 It records his victory in the archonship of Kephisodoros in 323/2, and the relief indicates that his team was also made up of beardless pyrrhichistai (Fig. 2.2).104 The inclusion of this contest in the Little Panathenaia was extremely appropriate because it was understood to commemorate Athena’s celebration of the victory over the Giants, as we saw in Chapter 2. A further competition, the torch-race, was associated with the annual festival by Johannes Tzetzes, who was active in the twelfth century ad. On two occasions, he reports in his scholia on Aristophanes’ Frogs that such a race was held three times a year, at the Panathenaia, the Prometheia and the Hephaisteia.105 The earlier scholia vetera, however, are not so clear about this contest. One entry reports that the Athenians held the torch-race every year in the Kerameikos, while the next states that there were three 98 99 100

101 102 103 104

Above note 90. On the date, see P. Wilson 2000: 360 note 70; Lewis 1955: 18 22. Lys. 21.4. Compare Tracy 2007: 56, although the speaker’s team did not win the event. Todd is less certain about the date; Todd 2000: 230. Compare Shear 2003b: 90 note 7 and see below Appendix 4. For the different age groups, see below Chapter 5. SEG LIII 202 IG II3.4 435. On the demotic, see Shear 2003a: 166 7. Date: Shear 2003a: 167 8; relief: Shear 2003a: pl. 2c. 105 Schol. Tzet. Ar. Frogs 135a, 1087.

Competitions and the Little Panathenaia

such contests, for Athena, Hephaistos and Prometheus, but it does not tell us how often they took place.106 In the fragmentary decree about the Hephaisteia from 421/0, the torch-race is associated not only with the celebration for Hephaistos, but also with the penteteris, which seems to be the Panathenaia, the only festival with a torch-race which Aristotle includes in his list of Athenian penteteric festivities.107 In the later fifth and fourth centuries, accordingly, the race with torches must have been held for Athena only every five years and not annually. It seems most likely that, in the twelfth century ad, Tzetzes combined the information of what had previously been two separate entries in the scholia, and thus created the race at the annual celebration where it had previously been absent. Our very limited evidence suggests, accordingly, that only two competitions, the cyclic chorus and the pyrrhiche, were part of the Little Panathenaia.108 Both are positively attested for a rather short period of time: the cyclic chorus only in the later fifth century and the dance in arms from the late fifth to the later fourth century. As we shall see when we discuss the games at the Great Panathenaia, all tribal team contests ceased by the early third century, when the parallel events at the annual festivities must also have stopped.109 In both cyclic chorus and the pyrrhiche at the Little Panathenaia, the participants consisted of teams of Athenians sponsored by choregoi, whose primary responsibility was probably to provide the necessary funds. Their involvement indicates that the two contests were open only to citizens, and it strongly suggests that the teams competed by tribe, as they did in the parallel events at the Great Panathenaia and the choral competitions of the Dionysia and Thargelia. At the games of the annual festival, however, participation in all the known events was restricted, while at the penteteric celebration, the tribal competitions, both for individual Athenians and for teams, were balanced by a programme of athletic and hippic contests open to all competitors. The limitations on who could take part in the contests at the Little Panathenaia fit with the rest of our evidence about the annual festivities, and the events 106

107

108

109

Schol. vet. Ar. Frogs 129b c; cf. schol. vet. Ar. Frogs 1087a which repeats the information of 129c and Harp., Phot. Lex. s.v. λαμπάς; Suda s.v. λαμπάδος, Κεραμεικός. IG I3 82.30 3; Arist. Ath. Pol. 54.7; Parker 2005: 471; contra: Makres 2014: 193 6. For other views on the penteteris, see the commentary on IG I3 82; Makres 2014: 193. Despite this evidence, Ziehen and Davies believed that this contest was part of the Little Panathenaia; Ziehen 1949: 487 8; Davies 1967: 37. Despite the absence of evidence, Ziehen also includes a competition in euandria and a contest of ships at the Little Panathenaia; Ziehen 1949: 488. On these events, see Chapter 5. Perhaps the contests at the Little Panathenaia did not even survive the termination of the choregia and the institution of the position of agonothetes, a development dated to sometime between 317 and 307 bc; see below Chapter 4 with note 56.

107

108

The Little Panathenaia

bring out the ways in which this version of the celebration focused closely on displaying the city and her subdivisions to herself, rather than to visitors from abroad. Since the pyrrhiche was one of only two events included on the programme, it was marked out as particularly special, a situation explained by its origins in Athena’s celebration of the victory over the Giants. This close association with the reasons for holding the festival, in turn, elucidated why only Athenians could take part in the event.

The Little Panathenaia and the Creation of Identities The Little Panathenaia, as it emerges from our sources, consisted of three main events, the sacrifices, the procession and the pannychis, which formed the core of the celebration and probably go back to the middle of the sixth century. From at least the later fifth to the later fourth centuries, it also included a limited set of competitions open only to Athenian teams which represented their tribes. It was altogether a smaller and less complicated event than the penteteric festival, and it does not seem to have been drawing large numbers of visitors from outside Athens and Attica. A significant change to the proceedings took place in the late second century bc, perhaps in or just before 110/9, when the peplos began to be dedicated at the annual celebration as well as the penteteric one. This development must have added greatly to the spectacle of the event, and it also required considerable changes to the ways in which preparations for the festivities were carried out and to the personnel who did this work. With these different components, the Little Panathenaia provided a variety of opportunities for participation and thus also for the creation of identities. In discussing these processes, we shall apply the interpretative approaches which we discussed in Chapter 1. Especially important for our purposes are the multiplicity of identities which individuals have and their contextual and social natures, which require constant (re)negotiation. At the little celebration, taking on particular roles allowed individuals to create specific identities. The largest number of such opportunities was for Athenians who could participate by virtue of their positions as officials of the city (prytaneis, archons, generals and taxiarchoi), as officials and servants of the goddess (treasurers, hieropoioi, [kanephoroi], girls working the wool),110 or simply as Athenians, particularly in the procession and at 110

I define ‘servant of the goddess’ as an individual who acts on the goddess’ behalf, such as the priestesses and treasurers, who brings a sacrificial animal or other offering to her, who helps to make the peplos, or who otherwise acts in such a way as to affect the goddess directly. In this

The Little Panathenaia and Identities

the sacrifices. Subgroups of the city were also specifically represented. They appeared in the procession and at the sacrifices in the context of the victims offered by at least some demes and gene; since not all of these subgroups necessarily offered the same type of animal, what they chose to offer to Athena may also have helped to distinguish between different subgroups. Most probably, the Athenians in the procession and later the ephebes were marshalled by deme and by tribe, hence the involvement of the taxiarchoi in the 330s, while, in the late second century bc, we should imagine the girls who worked the wool for the peplos being so organised. The prytaneis also represented both their tribes and their demes. When Athenians competed in the games, they once again represented their tribes. The demes were also visible when the meat was distributed in the [Kerameikos]. At least in the later classical period, non-Athenians, most probably metics and perhaps their daughters, also seem to have taken part in the procession. These different groups were clearly demarcated from each other, so that participation as a member of one of them will have made those boundaries distinct and visible. At the time of the procession and especially at the games, not everyone was able to take part in the proceedings; instead, many people, both Athenians and non-Athenian residents, watched other individuals participate. Spectating, however, required a conscious decision to do so, to go out and to be in the right place at the right time; consequently, it constitutes a form of participation in its own right, albeit one which is unmarked (in the linguistic sense) in contrast to the marked forms which we discussed previously.111 Together, the marked participants and the spectators formed the overall community celebrating and honouring the goddess, ‘all the Athenians’ who held the Little Panathenaia. In this way, the proceedings as a whole served to display the city marshalled in her constituent parts to herself and to the goddess. The repeated emphasis on the subgroups of the Kleisthenic system, the demes and tribes, together with the visibility of officials of that system, stressed the democratic nature of the community. That many of these officials were chosen by lot and were not (necessarily) members of the city’s high social and economic strata also fit with this imagery.112 This presentation will have been strongly reinforced by the rituals for Harmodios and Aristogeiton which took place at both the Little

111 112

definition, not everyone who takes part in the festival is a ‘servant of the goddess’; instead, they are worshippers of the goddess, but the term is too broad to be heuristically useful, except when it designates the community as a whole in the act of sacrificing and praying to the goddess. On the role of spectators, see also Stavrianopoulou 2015: 350, 357 8. The generals and the other military officials, however, were elected; Arist. Ath. Pol. 61.1 6.

109

110

The Little Panathenaia

and the Great Panathenaia.113 As we saw in Chapter 2, this cult made the seminal moment when the tyrant was overthrown and the city became ruled by the demos ever present. In this context, it became an integral part of what it meant to be Athenian, while, at the same time, the potential costs were also brought out: one might have to fight, and even die, for the democracy. That the democratic city was putting on the festival further reinforced the idea that the rule of the demos was integral to the community’s overall identity. Indeed, the whole festival presented the democratic city in action, as it were. At the level of the individual, the roles which people took on and the identities which were created did not remain stable over the course of this multi-day event. We can see how this process worked by looking more closely at the two vignettes which our sources provide: the festival in the middle to the third quarter of the fourth century and again in the late second century bc. In the fourth century, the procession brought the entire community of ‘all the Athenians’ together, both those marching in the procession and those watching, but individuals in the procession also had additional, specific and marked identities: as officials, as servants of the goddess, as members of particular demes, tribes and/or gene. The metics were included in the community of ‘all the Athenians’, as was appropriate for the democratic city, but, at the same time, they had distinctive roles which set them apart and marked them as not being citizens of the city. At the time of the sacrifices listed in the decree on the festival, however, the focus shifted, because the prayers concentrated on the relationship between the goddess and the now undifferentiated sacrificing and worshipping community of the Athenians, all those who inhabited the city, rather than just the (male) citizens so over-represented in the procession. Subsequently, when the victims of the subgroups were brought up, the focus now moved to the communities of the subgroups and their relationships with the goddess and away from the city as a whole. In contrast, the distribution of the meat concentrated specifically on (male) citizens, the greatest number of whom received their meat in the [Kerameikos]. Individuals from at least some subgroups were also given meat from their sacrifices, a moment which brought out the importance of membership in that subgroup. Officials of the city and officials and servants of the goddess were given additional shares by virtue of their special positions in the city and sanctuary (Table 3.1); in this way, they constituted other, special subgroups of the Athenians. Meanwhile, the metics and apparently the 113

Above Chapter 2.

The Little Panathenaia and Identities

Athenian women and children who were not servants of the goddess received nothing, as they were now marked as not part of the community.114 In contrast, the pannychis most probably focused on the importance of the female Athenians, because maiden choruses seem to have been a significant aspect of the revel. If their songs were at least in part about Athena’s deeds, especially in connection with the Gigantomachy, and Erichthonios’ story, then they would have disseminated the festival’s own narratives while also linking them closely with the singers, the Athenian maidens. Finally, at the games, the focus was back on Athenian male citizens, as they competed for their tribes, and their sons, the citizensto-be and the newest citizens. Particularly in the pyrrhiche, participants imitated the goddess and performed her dance, so that they brought out their very close relationship to her as the (figurative) descendants of her foster son, who had founded the festival. No metic could possibly measure up to such standards and, at this moment, metics were certainly not part of ‘all the Athenians’; Athenian women and girls, and presumably also metic females, may not even have been present at all.115 In some ways, the situation in the late second century was probably not too different. Since the metoikia had ceased to exist by this time,116 metics were not included. Subgroups of the Athenians may have continued to bring their own offerings to the goddess, but their presence is not positively attested. Nevertheless, demes and tribes most likely continued to be well represented in the procession, because the ephebes and the girls working the wool for the peplos were very probably so organised. The ephebes’ participation emphasised the importance of being prepared to fight for the city, especially if they processed in armour. In 108/7 and subsequent years, the girls’ presence brought out the desirability of working for the goddess and preparing her special gift. Both of these groups were particularly marked out in the procession, but, at the sacrifices, they were incorporated back into the body of ‘all the Athenians’. In the late second century, there was now rather more focus on the younger generations of the city who were not yet full adult members of the community and on the wealthier and more socially prominent segments of society than there seems to have been 114

115

116

Recipients of sacrifices: Parker 2005: 267; Whitehead 1977: 87; P. Wilson 2000: 26; cf. Wijma 2014: 41 2. McInerney suggests that women and children may, in fact, have received shares; McInerney 2010: 176. Goldhill 1994: 355 7. That parthenoi (maidens), but not married women, watched the games in the stadium at Olympia should indicate that there was no general cultural bar against females’ presence at such competitions involving (naked) men; Paus. 6.20.8 9; cf. Paus. 5.6.7 8; Dillon 2000. Above Chapter 2 note 139. Metoikia: the status and privileges of metics.

111

112

The Little Panathenaia

in the third quarter of the fourth century. Since the tribal teams were no longer part of the proceedings in the second century, the possibilities which those contests offered male citizens and citizens-to-be had also disappeared; in contrast, at the penteteric festival, individual tribal competitions, and so opportunities for creating tribal identities, still existed at this time, as we shall see in Chapter 5. As these two vignettes bring out, participation was not only differential, but it was also not constant over the course of the festival: at some moments, the proceedings were more inclusive, but, at others, they were less so. Thus, even the composition of the body of ‘all the Athenians’ shifted at different points during the celebration. Participation in the Little Panathenaia created a series of ideal roles to which individuals might aspire, and these positions together make up an ideal community of ‘all the Athenians’. For men, the opportunities included officials of the city and officials of the goddess; since the holders of at least some of these offices were selected by lot rather than elected, there was space for Athenians who were not members of high socioeconomic classes. There were additional roles for demesmen, tribesmen and members of the gene. In the later fifth and fourth centuries, opportunities also existed for representing one’s tribe in the games. For boys and beardless youths, the options were more limited: they appeared only as representatives of tribes in the later fifth and fourth centuries. For them, participation in the pyrrhiche might further be understood as preparation for fighting on behalf of the city, a particularly male role. Probably from the 370s, and certainly in 116/5, (beardless) youths could also appear as ephebes, who were specifically being trained to fight on behalf of the city. For women and girls, the possibilities were limited to the role of servants of the goddess: in the classical and earlier Hellenistic periods, as adult priestesses and as young, unmarried [kanephoroi] and/or members of the choruses at the pannychis. In the late second century, girls could in addition work the wool for the peplos, an activity which, as well, might be understood as preparing them for typical adult female duties. Metics and perhaps their daughters were also offered the opportunity of serving the goddess. The roles for boys, beardless youths and girls all required time in advance of the festival for preparation, and so wealthier and more socially prominent individuals will have been over-represented here, as they must have been with the priestesses. Thus, the ideal holder of these roles will also have been part of the city’s higher socio-economic strata, in contrast to some, but not all, of the men’s positions. How this emphasis on such social standing was understood probably varied over time: in the fourth century, it was more likely seen as the appropriation of elite activities by the demos, so that all

The Little Panathenaia and Identities

Athenians were now members of these high socio-economic classes; in contrast, in the late second century, it may have been seen rather as stressing the importance of membership in the city’s high social ranks. The opportunities for metics, their daughters, Athenian women and girls were, accordingly, quite limited and focused on their service to the goddess, activities which brought out their subordinate human position in relation to the divine. For girls, as for boys and beardless youths, there was also an aspect of preparation for adult life. In contrast, men had multiple positions which they could fill. Collectively, these different roles presented an image of the good Athenian citizen: a man who was active on the local level in his deme, but also on the level of the democratic city and especially as a member of his tribe and a holder of city offices. His engagement with these various aspects of the Kleisthenic system marked him out as a democrat. He was further prepared to serve the goddess both by holding religious offices and also by bringing gifts to her. As his participation in the pyrrhiche showed, the good citizen was prepared to fight for the city, while taking part in the competition allowed him to display his masculinity. This contest further brought out his close relationship to Athena and his autochthonous heritage, elements which set him apart from the metics. Creating this much more complex image required both multiple roles for men and participation in a variety of them. For us, it usefully brings out just how important it was to take part repeatedly in different aspects of the festival and to take on various positions in it. These ideal roles, and so also the identities which fulfilling them created, rely on comparison and contrast with the positions of other members of the group.117 They concentrate, consequently, on different subgroups within the overall body of ‘all the Athenians’. In this sense, they are internal to the city, and they work together with other aspects of the festival to display the community to itself. The ideal nature of these roles creates a sense of homogeneity, because everyone performing a particular role theoretically conforms to it, while, in reality, it allows for difference at the level of the individual, who is not identical to other people in the same position. For example, not all pyrrhichistai would have been equally skilled and, consequently, not all teams could win the competition, but the role assumes no difference between the dancers. As this discussion brings out, the Little Panathenaia focused primarily on the (ideal) role of the individual within the community of ‘all the Athenians’. Much less attention seems to have been devoted to the identity of the overall group to which individuals 117

For these processes, see above Chapter 1 with notes 110 and 117.

113

114

The Little Panathenaia

belonged by virtue of their participation in the celebration. This lack of focus on the community is the result of the absence of visitors from beyond Athens and Attica: without them, creating Athenian identity will have been extremely difficult, because these processes require differences and members of other groups to work, as we saw in Chapter 1. In this way, the Little Panathenaia contrasts with the penteteric festival, which emphasised Athenian identity to a much greater extent, as we shall see in Chapters 6 and 7.

Goddess, Festival and City Focusing on the Little Panathenaia shows that this version of the celebration was a limited affair, with the sacrifices to the goddess, the procession to her sanctuary and the all-night revel as its core. From the later fifth to the later fourth centuries, it was certainly extended to include some contests, but they were only open to Athenians who competed for their tribes. Although our evidence is limited, we can see that the annual festival was not static, but it changed over time. The most obvious modifications are the absence of competitions after the end of the fourth century and the introduction in the late second century of an annual peplos. The termination of these contests also reduced the opportunities for creating tribal identities and eliminated any role for Athenian boys. When the Athenians decided to give Athena a robe every year, this new element caused further changes in other areas of the festival: now the procession had to accommodate the girls who worked the wool for the peplos. How individuals participated in these events was important, because not everyone took part in the same way. Citizen men, in particular, were afforded far more opportunities than anyone else, while many Athenians served primarily as the audience for those marching in the procession or competing in the games. Taking part created a series of ideal roles for different members of the community of ‘all the Athenians’. In this way, the Little Panathenaia displayed the inhabitants of the city to themselves and to the goddess. This process was reinforced by the distribution of the events in the cityscape. While the sacrifices and the pannychis took place on the Akropolis, the meat from the main sacrifices seems to have been distributed in the [Kerameikos]. The portions from the offering of Skambonidai were given out in the deme’s agora, and it is likely that the meat from the immolations of other subgroups was also distributed in places other than the [Kerameikos]. While the procession ended up in Athena’s sanctuary on

Goddess, Festival and City

the Akropolis, it started in the lower city, probably at the Kerameikos, and it certainly made its way through the Agora. In this way, it linked together different parts of the city, and it marked out certain areas, such as the Akropolis and the Agora, as particularly significant for the city’s inhabitants. After the institution of the Kleisthenic democracy, the route through the marketplace reinforced the rule of the demos, which the procession also made visible. The competitions also took place outside of the sanctuary, although our evidence is silent on their exact location. Distributed in different venues around the city, the various parts of the festival forced the participants and their audience to go from one place to another in order to play their roles in the proceedings. In this way, the display of the city included not just the inhabitants, but also the physical spaces of Athens.118 When participants subsequently returned to these places, their presence will have activated their memories of their role(s) in the Little Panathenaia, and the identities created on that occasion will have been refreshed and reinforced. Dispersed in time and space around Athens, the celebration nevertheless did not turn into an agglomeration of unrelated elements. Instead, it was held together both by its overall purpose of creating and maintaining reciprocity with Athena and by the repetition of the main Panathenaic themes, which further explained what the occasion was all about. In the classical period, the most important of these was the pyrrhiche and its connection with the Gigantomachy, while, in the late second century, the battle with the Giants now decorated the annual peplos. The overall military theme may have been reinforced by the attire of the generals, the taxiarchoi, their tribal regiments and the ephebes. The processional songs sung during the march to the Akropolis and the hymns sung at the time of the sacrifices provided further opportunities for celebrating the main themes of the festival, as potentially did the prayers to the goddess. The choruses of the maidens at the pannychis offered additional occasions for repeating the main stories connected with the Panathenaia. The repetition of these narratives will also have linked the little celebration with the penteteric festival. As we shall see in the coming chapters, the Great Panathenaia complemented and reinforced the dynamics of the annual festivities, but it did so in an international, rather than local, context.

118

For the general dynamics, cf. Kavoulaki 1999: 297.

115

4

The Great Panathenaia: Ritual and Reciprocity

As we saw in the last chapter, the Little Panathenaia was not an occasion which regularly drew large numbers of foreign visitors to the city; instead, the festival focused on Athenians, so that it displayed the city and her subgroups to herself, as it were. In contrast, the Great Panathenaia included not only local residents and farmers from Attica, but also people coming eventually from all over the Mediterranean to compete in the games, to sacrifice to the goddess and to spectate.1 Already in the fifth century, some of these visitors could be quite well known: Plato associates Zenon and Parmenides’ visit to the city with these festivities.2 At the penteteric celebration, the peplos was dedicated to the goddess and the prize amphorae were awarded to the victors in the games. For Athenians, it was the most important festival in the city’s sacred calendar, a status which was reinforced by the co-ordination of the official terms for the treasurers of the goddess and the treasurers of the other gods with the celebration, and not with the regular calendar of the archon-year.3 For us, the festivities’ prominence is further brought out by our documentary sources: in 420 bc, the alliance between Athens, Elis, Mantineia and Argos specified that its renewal was to take place shortly before the Olympic games and the Great Panathenaia, the most significant celebrations for the cities concerned, 1

2 3

116

Farmers: Plaut. Merc. 64 8 (drawing on Philemon, Emporos). The pan Mediterranean nature of the Panathenaia is clearest in the first half of the second century bc, when a series of victors’ lists show that winners came from as far west as Liguria and as far east as Seleukeia on the Tigris; Shear 2007c: 142 table 4. In the second half of the sixth century, Panathenaic prize amphorae were already appearing in sanctuaries beyond Athens, where they were presumably dedicated by victors; Bentz 1998: 103. The earliest such example comes from the Demeter Sanctuary at Cyrene and dates to 550 540 bc; Bentz 1998: 6.045. Pl. Prm. 127a7 9; Parker 2005: 254. Most important festival: schol. vet. Ar. Clouds 386a; schol. Tzet. Ar. Clouds 386; schol. rec. Ar. Clouds 386a, b. Treasurers: IG I3 292.2 6; 296.2 5; 300.2 7; 305.2 6; 309.1 4; 317.1 4; 321.29 32; 325.2 5; 329.1 5; 333.1 4; 343.1 3; 351.2 5; 355.1 5; Osborne and Rhodes 2017: xxv, 280; cf. Marcaccini 2015: 517 19 with further references; contra: Marcaccini 2015: 519 31. Their accounts also ran from festival to festival: IG I3 52A.27 9; 52B.26 9; 369.1 2, 48 51, 54 5. Certain other officials also held office on the Panathenaic cycle; Arist. Ath. Pol. 43.1; Rhodes 1981: 517.

The Great Panathenaia

while, in the later fifth century, the allies’ tribute was assessed at the Great Panathenaia.4 These requirements also indicate that the Athenians expected large numbers of visitors from beyond Attica to be present in the city at the time of the penteteric celebration. The presence of all these visitors from abroad enhanced the international nature of the occasion and made it quite different from the annual celebration with its local focus. It is an oversimplification, consequently, to understand the Great Panathenaia as being primarily ‘a great domestic showcase’.5 Instead, we need to focus on the presence of both Athenians and their visitors and to identify their various roles within the festivities in honour of the goddess. As we shall see, roles were restricted, so that not everyone could participate in the same way at the same moment. These limitations did not remain stable either during the course of the celebration or over the history of the Great Panathenaia, which is attested in one way or another from the 560s bc until the end of the fourth century ad. Elucidating these dynamics certainly clarifies the history of the occasion, but it also makes it possible to examine the ways in which the Great Panathenaia intersected with the processes of creating identities, as we shall discuss further in Chapters 6 and 7. The various events which made up the Great Panathenaia may be divided into two sections: the procession conveying the sacrificial animals, peplos and other offerings to the Akropolis, where they were offered to Athena, and the games which entertained the goddess and also served to showcase the prowess of the participants. In terms of creating and maintaining reciprocal relations with the divinity, the sacrifices and other gifts, as conveyed in the procession, were obviously the most important aspect of the festivities; in this chapter we shall discuss them in the order in which they must have happened, while the following chapter focuses on the games. As we shall see, the procession and attendant rituals included a multitude of different roles for various individuals and groups. Athenians, both male and female, were certainly represented, but so were other inhabitants, the metics and their daughters and delegations from the colonies and, in the later fifth century, the allies. Together, they made up the community of ‘all the Athenians’ who were celebrating Athena and her deeds against the Giants. Status within this community was made explicit when the sacrifices and other gifts were given to the goddess, a process which revealed that not all individuals were equal in relation to the divinity. 4

5

Alliance: Thuc. 5.47.10; note that these two festivals occurred in different years in the Olympic cycle. Tribute: IG I3 61.5 9, 29 32; 71.26 33; Meiggs 1972: 235, 239 40. Parker 2005: 253.

117

118

The Great Panathenaia

Thus, the ‘issues of prestige and social ranking’ were not limited to the procession itself,6 and they continued to play out in the subsequent rituals in the goddess’ sanctuary. The repetition of the festival’s stories and themes served not only to unify the processes of conveying and offering the gifts to the goddess, but also to link them with the games, so that the whole penteteric celebration became a unified event comparable to the annual festivities.

The Procession to the Goddess The rituals on the Akropolis at the Great Panathenaia were made possible by the procession through the city, which served the important function of bringing all the necessary people, animals and other items to the sanctuary in order and at the right time. Since it included a large number of different elements, as well as all the sacrificial animals and other gifts, the process created an arresting display, as depictions in the visual sphere demonstrate, and it served to showcase the participants to spectators. Our testimonia unanimously identify the route of the procession as running from the gates of the city at the Kerameikos, along the Panathenaic Way, through the Agora and up to the Akropolis;7 consequently, there was plenty of space both for the large and elaborate procession to march and for the many spectators to admire it. Of course, not everyone was fascinated with the proceedings: Aischines the Socratic imagines Sokrates and his friends conversing in the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios rather than watching the parade.8 Modern scholars, in contrast, have been particularly interested in the procession, but they have tended either to focus on the classical period or to use the Parthenon frieze as their starting point, and so to look primarily at the fifth century.9 The effect is to present the procession as static and unchanging and to ignore the considerable post-classical material and the history of the event. As we shall see, the procession most 6 7

8

9

Parker 2005: 253; cf. Maurizio 1998; Kavoulaki 1999: 301; Larson 2016: 147 8. For the route, see e.g. Thuc. 1.20.1, 6.57.1 3; Arist. Ath. Pol. 18.3; Plut. Demetr. 12.3; Aischin. Socr. Milt. fr. 76 (Giannantoni) P.Oxy. 2889; Him. Or. 47.12 13 (Colonna); Agora XVIII C210; schol. Ar. Knights 566a; Suda s.v. πέπλος; cf. Paus. 1.2.4; Parker 2005: 258; Kavoulaki 1999: 299 300. Above note 7. Perhaps we should think of them as awaiting the arrival of the procession in the Agora. E.g. A. Mommsen 1898: 131 45; Deubner 1932: 25 6, 28 30; Ziehen 1949: 463 70; Parke 1977: 37 45; Simon 1983: 58 70; Norman 1983: 41; Wohl 1996: 51 78; Maurizio 1998; Parker 2005: 258 64; Larson 2016: 144 8; Neils 2012: 205 10.

The Procession to the Goddess

certainly did change over time, and it was never rigidly fixed. Since it played an important role in displaying all the participants, elucidating the roles, history and development of this event is necessary for understanding how the issues of identity creation played out here. In order for the very complex procession of the Great Panathenaia with its many different elements to reach Athena’s sanctuary, it needed to be marshalled in one place and then dispatched. For the celebration of 514, the earliest one for which we have specific testimonia, this role is assigned to either the tyrant Hippias or his brother Hipparchos (Table 4.1).10 In Thucydides’ two accounts, both Hippias and Hipparchos are involved in marshalling (κοσμέω) the parade, a description which seems quite reasonable for such a large group of marchers who filled the space from the outer Kerameikos to the Leokoreion, wherever exactly this shrine was located north and west of the Agora. The holders of these positions were highly visible, and thus it is not surprising to find the tyrant and members of his family occupying them. With the invention of the Kleisthenic system of demes and tribes in 508/7 bc, the job of organising the procession was assigned to the newly invented demarchoi, the chief officials of demes.11 They would have been the obvious candidates to marshal contingents from the demes and perhaps, when the procession set off, each demarchos led his own delegation. Since there were 139 demes in the period before 224/3 bc, these contingents would have contributed greatly to the overall size of the parade and, in the years immediately after 508/7, they would have emphasised that Athenians from all parts of Attica were now included.12 As we shall see, this change was one of many which must be connected with the new Kleisthenic system. The demarchoi most likely continued to have this role in the late 330s bc, when Aristotle reports that the athlothetai managed the procession, as well as overseeing the rest of the festival (Table 4.1). As this evidence indicates, our testimonia focus on the officials who 10

11

12

The testimonia disagree on Hippias’ role at this festival. It seems more likely that Hippias wished to be seen actively participating in the procession, rather than just receiving it on the Akropolis; if this assumption is correct, then we should follow Thucydides’ account over that of Aristotle; Thuc. 6.57.1; Arist. Ath. Pol. 18.3. Aristotle’s account may have developed to explain why Hippias was not killed by Harmodios and Aristogeiton; cf. Fornara 1968: 408 9. Schol. Ald. ed. Ar. Clouds 37; cf. Suda s.v. δήμαρχοι; Parker 2005: 74. These two testimonia are probably derived from the same source; cf. generally Dunbar 1995: 43 4; Dover 1968: cxxv; Dickey 2007: 29. On the Aldine edition, see Dover 1968: cxxv; Dunbar 1995: 49 50; N. G. Wilson 2007b: 12. Musurus, who edited the Aldine edition, owned the fourteenth century manuscript E, which contains the corpus of ancient scholia least contaminated by medieval material. Number of demes: Traill 1975: 76. Three new demes were subsequently added, one each in 224/ 3 and 201/0 bc and in ad 127/8.

119

120

The Great Panathenaia

actually organised the proceedings, and they are largely silent about the participation of other office holders of the city. With the exception of the hieropoioi, who were not involved with the penteteric festival in the 330s bc, all the officials who received portions from the sacrifices to Athena Hygieia and in the ar[chaios neos] at the Little Panathenaia (Table 3.1) were most probably also connected with the great celebration, and so marched in the procession.13 The city’s military officials must also have been involved in the parade, because the Athenians are attested as marching in arms to Athena’s sanctuary (Table 4.2). Our best evidence for this practice comes from the narratives about the assassination of Hipparchos, although they do not agree on the details. For Thucydides, the Athenians were armed in the procession and then disarmed by Hippias in the immediate aftermath of the events. In contrast, Aristotle believed that the carrying of arms was only introduced at a later date by the demos. Since the visual evidence suggests that armed hoplites were already part of the procession in the middle of the sixth century, as we shall see below, it seems likely that Thucydides and Aristotle are reflecting slightly different moments in the procession’s history: in the aftermath of Hipparchos’ assassination the Athenians marched unarmed, while, after the expulsion of Hippias in 511/0 or in 508/7 at the latest, they paraded in arms, as was appropriate for a victory festival.14 After the introduction of the democracy, these armed contingents were presumably organised by deme and by tribe and accompanied by their officers, the generals and the taxiarchoi, as they were in the little festival.15 In some periods, the ephebes seem to have been included in the procession of the Great Panathenaia (Table 4.2). Our most explicit source is a passage in Heliodoros’ novel Aithiopika, which is set in the fifth century bc, but was composed in the Roman imperial period.16 The practices described 13

14

15

16

Aristotle specifically excludes the annual hieropoioi from the Great Panathenaia; Arist. Ath. Pol. 54.7. In the middle and second half of the fifth century, however, they are explicitly connected with the great celebration; IG I3 14.2 5; 375.6 7. Their title has been partially or completely restored on IG I3 507.1 2; 508.6 7. Compare Parker 2005: 260 note 27; contra: G. Anderson 2003: 164 5, who ignores the sixth century visual evidence. A date in 508/7 for the reinstitution of the practice would suit Aristotle’s statement that it was begun by the demos. For the officers, cf. Dem. 4.26 and 21.171, but note that the Panathenaia is not specifically mentioned. Heliod. Aith. 1.10.1. The date of this novel is disputed: it has been placed in either the third or the fourth century ad; for a helpful summary with further bibliography, see E. Bowie 2008: 32 4. The events are set in famous locations, which readers are supposed to recognise; cf. Rattenbury, Lumb and Maillon 1935: 26 note 1; J. R. Morgan 1996: 434 5. One wonders to what extent that dynamic was really possible after the Herulian destruction of ad 267, on which see

The Procession to the Goddess

here must belong to the imperial period, because Heliodoros specifies that the penteteric festival is the occasion when the Athenians send the ship (ναῦν) on land to the goddess; the ship-car was first introduced in the earlier second century ad, as we shall discuss below. Further evidence comes from one of the fragments of Deinarchos’ speech against Agasikles, who is accused of bribing the demesmen of Halimous to enrol him as a citizen. As a result of his money, the passage envisions some young men, presumably Agasikles’ sons, going up to the Akropolis as ephebes and not as skaphephoroi or tray-bearers.17 On this evidence, the ephebes seem to have been participating regularly in the parade at the Panathenaia by the period 330–324 bc.18 When they first began to take part is difficult to ascertain: it may have been in the middle of the 330s with Epikrates’ reform of the ephebeia, or it may have been earlier in the 370s, when the ephebeia was first invented.19 Since the evidence for the torch-race indicates that the contest was already limited to the ephebes in the middle of the fourth century, it seems likely that they began both racing and marching in the procession as an identifiable contingent when the ephebeia was invented in the 370s.20 The presence of the ephebes was certainly a fourth-century development which distinctly changed the composition of the procession and increased the prominence of the city’s young men in the proceedings. In the Hellenistic period, the ephebes’ participation in the Great Panathenaia is never specifically mentioned in their honorary inscriptions, although their activities at other festivals are reported, sometimes in detail. In the second century, especially after 128/7, and in the early first century, the young men are further stated to have participated in the (unspecified) processions of the city, a group which is sometimes further described as all the processions and presumably includes the Great Panathenaia.21 The

17

18

19

20

21

Frantz 1988: 1 5 with further references. Nor is it clear that the ephebeia continued after this date; cf. Kennell 2009b: 334; Wiemer 2011: 518 28. Dein. 16 fr. 5; quoted by Harp., Suda, Phot. Lex. s.v. σκαφηφόροι; Pélékidis 1962: 254. The combination of the Akropolis and the skaphephoroi identifies the occasion as the Panathenaia. For the date, see Hyp. Eux. 3, which belongs between 330 and 324 bc; Whitehead 2000: 155 7. This participation is not mentioned by Aristotle in his contemporary description of the training of the ephebes; Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.2 5. Epikrates’ reforms seem to date to 335/4; Knoepfler 2001: 381 2; Chankowski 2010: 128 9; Kennell 2013: 16; Chankowski 2014: 18 19; Knoepfler 2015b: 62 7. The new system had certainly begun by 334/3, as we know from RO 89, the earliest extant inscription honouring the ephebes. Invention of the ephebeia in the 370s: above Chapter 3 note 53. Torch race: below Chapter 5. Since the ephebes were not part of the festival before the 370s, the celebration should not be understood as a ‘rite of passage’ for them, as Brandt would like to do; Brandt 2012: 164; Brandt 2001: 107. IG II2 1006.11 Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 26.11; 1006 + SEG XIX 108.74 Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 26.74; 1008.12; 1009 + Agora I 5952.17 18 Perrin Saminadayar 2007:

121

122

The Great Panathenaia

absence of a particular clause concerning Athena’s festival suggests that the ephebes’ participation in it was not marked in the ways in which their activities at the named festivals were. It seems likely that they were understood as one part of the larger Athenian military. If this interpretation is correct, then some classes, like ephebes of the archonship of Menoites in 116, were especially honoured with an invitation to participate as a separate contingent.22 If the sacrifice which the ephebes of the archonship of Demetrios in 123/2 made to Athena Nike took place at the Great Panathenaia of 122, then these young men would also have received such an honour.23 In contrast, the description in the Aithiopika suggests that the ephebes were a separate unit dressed in chlamydes or short cloaks, which marked them out from other participants. In the Roman imperial period, Athens was part of a larger empire and apparently no longer had her own military forces; except for the hoplite general, the offices of all the other generals ceased to exist in the last third of the first century bc.24 Consequently, the ephebes were the city’s only military contingent, and they would have stood out for that reason. While, in the fourth century and the Hellenistic period, the ephebes were apparently one group among many in the parade, Athenians who carried various ritual items were given more prominence and treated as special groups (Table 4.3). Of them, the most important were the kanephoroi, whose baskets contained items necessary for the sacrifice, as we saw in Chapter 3.25 For Philochoros, this office had been established by Erichthonios himself for the Panathenaia and other processions (Table 4.3); it was, therefore, a very old part of the proceedings. Aristotle thought, almost certainly wrongly, that Harmodios’ sister had been invited and then uninvited from carrying a basket at Athena’s parade.26 Two girls who acted as kanephoroi are attested in the second half of the second century bc

22 23

24

25 26

T 30.17 18; 1028.14 Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 32.14; 1029.10; IG II3.1 1313.10; SEG XV 104.12 14. Above Chapter 3 with note 27. IG II2 1006.14 15 Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 26.14 15. Since the text does not mention the occasion, various festivities have been suggested; Pélékidis 1962: 253 4 with further bibliography; Mikalson 1998: 249. Military forces: Wiemer 2011: 491; Brélaz 2005: 27 30; Brélaz 2008: 159 62; cf. Kennell 2009b: 333 4; Brunt 1975. Generals: Geagan 1967: 20 1 with further references. The hoplite general was now largely concerned with civic, rather than military, matters; Philostr. VS 1.526; Geagan 1967: 21 31. Above Chapter 3 note 46. Arist. Ath. Pol. 18.2. Since Aristotle’s version leaves very little time for the conspiracy against the sons of Peisistratos to develop, Harmodios’ sister most probably performed this office at an earlier festival, as presented by Thucydides 6.56.1; cf. [Pl.] Hipparch. 229c; Rhodes 1981: 230; Hornblower 2008: 448.

The Procession to the Goddess

(Table 4.3). Although our evidence generally focuses on individual girls, in the third quarter of the fourth century bc, Lykourgos provided gold ornaments for one hundred basket-bearers;27 Athena’s procession must have included a significant number of such girls, although perhaps not enough to wear all one hundred sets of gold ornaments at once.28 The known kanephoroi are all the daughters of citizens (Table 4.3).29 In the earlier part of the third century, Philochoros understood the original kanephoroi, who were established by Erichthonios, to have been maidens of high rank.30 Certainly, Harmodios’ sister in the late sixth century and, in the second century, the daughter of Miltiades, the son of Zoilos, of Marathon, whom we met in Chapter 1, fit this description. The second kanephoros known from the second century presumably also came from a family of fairly high social and economic status, because she was also a kanephoros at the Pythaïs, an occasion when the city’s elites were overrepresented.31 Similarly, the basket-bearing maidens in the classical period may, likewise, have come disproportionately from the more affluent and socially prominent families among the citizens.32 Certainly, the status of Harmodios’ family did not seem worthy of comment to either Thucydides or Aristotle when they came to write their (retrospective) accounts of the events of the Panathenaia of 514.33 The contingents of kanephoroi were joined by two other groups: the thallophoroi, old men carrying branches, and metics bearing trays, the skaphephoroi, whom we met earlier in connection with the ephebes (Table 4.3). For Xenophon, one of the distinguishing features of the thallophoroi is their beauty, and he describes them as chosen ‘for Athena’, a context which suggests the Panathenaia.34 The scholia on Aristophanes’ Wasps specifically connect the festival and the office, and they provide the further information that the old men took part in the

27 29

30 31 32

33 34

[Plut.] X orat. 852b. 28 Compare Parker 2005: 224. Compare Lexeis Rhetorikai s.v. κανηφόροι (270, 32 Bekker); repeated by Phot. Lex. s.v. κανηφόροι. Philoch. FGrHist 328 F8; quoted by Harp., Suda, Phot. Lex. s.v. κανηφόροι. Karila Cohen 2007: 367 9, 375. The chorus in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata remembers being kanephoros among their other contributions to the city, but they do not mention the Panathenaia specifically here, and this festival does not fit with their necklaces of dried figs; Ar. Lys. 641 7; Parker 2005: 226. In the context of the play, the chorus is not obviously composed of women from wealthy and socially prominent families, although they certainly performed a number of religious offices as girls. Thuc. 6.56.1 58.2; Arist. Ath. Pol. 18.1 6. Xen. Symp. 4.17. Note that the party described is set at the Great Panathenaia of 422; Xen. Symp. 1.2 4; cf. Ath. 5.216c d.

123

124

The Great Panathenaia

procession and carried branches, as their title suggests.35 Appropriately, the Etymologicum Magnum describes the foliage branches as ‘olive branches’, so that the items which the old men carried linked both to the goddess’ gift of the olive and the olive oil given to the victors in many contests in the games.36 The position of thallophoros certainly existed in the later fifth century, when Aristophanes in Wasps, Kratinos and Pherekrates all referred to it;37 although Aristophanes does not mention the Panathenaia, the office does not seem to have been connected with any other festivities. According to Philochoros, this position was also one of Erichthonios’ invention;38 by the early third century, consequently, these old men must have been understood as a long-standing part of the procession. In about 330–324, the procession also included skaphephoroi, as we saw briefly in our discussion of the ephebes (Table 4.3). They also appeared in a contemporary play of Menander from which Photios derives the information that they were specifically part of Athena’s procession; the trays were made of bronze or silver and carried honeycombs and flat cakes, while the metics themselves wore purple chitons.39 Hesychios also connected metics carrying trays with the Panathenaia, and he further specified that this office entitled them to sharing in the sacrifices (τῶν θυσιῶν).40 If the metics were using the one hundred bronze trays which appear in the inventories of the Hekatompedon in the late fifth and early fourth centuries, then they formed a sizable contingent.41 In contrast to the thallophoroi, the skaphephoroi took part in other processions in Athens, particularly the Dionysiac festivals, as we learn from the later lexicographical sources, which focus on the contrast between the metics with their trays and purple chitons and citizens with their askoi or wine jugs and the freedom to choose their own dress.42 Strikingly, they do not bring out this contrast at the 35

36 37 38 39 40

41

42

Schol. Ar. Wasps 544b; repeated by Etym. Magn. s.v. θαλλοφόρος; cf. Hsch. s.v. θαλλοφόρος, who does not mention the festival. Above note 35; cf. Hsch. s.v. θαλλοφόρος. Ar. Wasps 540 4; Kratin. fr. 33 (PCG); Pherekr. fr. 63 (PCG). Philoch. FGrHist 328 F9; quoted by the schol. Ar. Wasps 544b. Men. fr. 147 (PCG) quoted by Phot. Lex. s.v. σκάφας. Hsch. s.v. σκαφηφόροι. The festival of Athena may lurk in Ammonius, De adfinium vocabulorum differentia 247 s.v. ἰσοτελὴς καὶ μέτοικος, but the text must be emended from ἐν τῇ τῶν Ἀθηναίων πομπῇ to ἐν τῇ τῶν Παναθηναίων πομπῇ. IG I3 342.24; IG II2 1386 addenda.19; 1388.46; 1389.6; 1390.7; 1393.25 6; 1401.2; 1407.27; D. Harris 1995: no. V.229; Wijma 2014: 47. Other processions: Demetr. Phal. FGrHist 228 F5 (fr. 146 Wehrli); repeated by Harp., Phot. Lex., Suda s.v. σκαφηφόροι; Theophr. fr. 654 (Fortenbaugh); repeated by Paus. Att., Phot. Lex., Suda s.v. συστομώτερον σκάφης. Zenobios 5.95, Diogenianos 8.12 and Apostolios 15.75 also reflect Theophrastos, probably indirectly, if Pausanias Atticista s.v. συστομώτερον σκάφης (Erbse, p. 210,

The Procession to the Goddess

Panathenaia: evidently the politics of these different occasions did not appear the same to them.43 The presence of the thallophoroi and the skaphephoroi in the procession at Athena’s festival suggests that, in about 393, Aristophanes parodied it in the Ekklesiazousai when Chremes prepares to part with his possessions.44 The participants are represented by household utensils and are presented in order (Table 4.4). The olive branches ought to stand in for the thallophoroi who would carry them in Athena’s parade. Together with the skaphephoros and the procession’s destination in the Agora, they suggest that the event in the play is to be identified as the Panathenaia.45 Since Chremes’ parade includes a number of roles which our ancient written sources do not specifically connect with Athena’s festivities, this identification has important consequences for our understanding of the procession at the Panathenaia. It suggests that hydriaphoroi, or hydria-bearers, and diphrophoroi, or stool-bearers, also took part in the proceedings, even though the testimonia associate them only with unspecified parades.46 When Chremes organises his participants, the kanephoros is followed by a diphrophoros, the same arrangement which is envisioned in Aristophanes’ earlier play Birds; in neither passage is the position explained, and the audience is expected to understand the allusion.47 The scholia on this passage indicate that a kanephoros was normally followed both by an individual carrying a stool and by one carrying a parasol.48 In Chremes’ procession, the parasol is absent and the diphrophoros is followed immediately by a hydria representing a hydriaphoros. Since, in Greek, the noun hydria is feminine in gender, it probably represents here a female, rather than

43 44

45

46

47 48

no. 31) is correctly identified as the source for these authors. Dionysiac festivals: Lexeis Rhetorikai s.v. ἀσκοφορεῖν (214, 3 Bekker); Suda, Etym. Magn. s.v. ἀσκοφορεῖν. See further below Chapter 7. Ar. Ekkl. 728 45. These lines are assigned by Ussher and Rothwell to Chremes, but by Sommerstein and Wilson to a neighbour; Ussher 1973: 45, 178; Rothwell 1990: 61; Sommerstein 1998: 98, 203; N. G. Wilson 2007a: 244. This identification is generally assumed by modern commentators; see Ussher 1973: 178; Sommerstein 1998: 203; A. M. Bowie 1993: 8, 255, 262 3; Deubner 1932: 28; Ziehen 1949: 466; Wijma 2014: 48; cf. Parker 2005: 258 note 25. On hydriaphoroi, see A. Mommsen 1898: 142 with note 2; Deubner 1932: 28; Ziehen 1949: 466 7; Parke 1977: 44; Simon 1983: 63 4; Parker 2005: 258; Wijma 2014: 47 8. On diphrophoroi, see A. Mommsen 1898: 142 with note 1; Deubner 1932: 31 2 note 14; Ziehen 1949: 465 6; Parke 1977: 44; Simon 1983: 63, 65 6; Parker 2005: 258; Wijma 2014: 49 51. Ar. Birds 1549 52. The parasol for the kanephoros is also mentioned here. Schol. Ar. Birds 1551a, from which must derive Suda s.v. διφροφόρος; Hsch., Etym. Magn. s.v. διφροφόροι.

125

126

The Great Panathenaia

male, participant.49 This interpretation fits with our fourth-century evidence: according to Demetrios of Phaleron, the law specified that the daughters of metics carry hydriai and parasols ‘in the processions’; as Parker has rightly observed, these occasions are unlikely to have excluded the Panathenaia.50 In Chremes’ parade, the vessels at the end and the ‘multitude’ (ὄχλον) ought to represent other groups which could be imagined as taking part in the occasion, although their roles remain opaque; the multitude may map on to the spectators who watched the participants and then followed them up to the Akropolis.51 Together, this evidence indicates that, by the early fourth century, the Panathenaic procession had roles not only for Athenian citizens and their daughters, but also for metics and their daughters, albeit ones which were less important and less glamorous.52 It is not clear when these positions for metoikoi were first added to the proceedings, because the earliest references to them are in Aristophanes’ plays. Certainly, only the skaphephoroi are shown on the Parthenon frieze; the absence of female hydriaphoroi, diphrophoroi and parasol-bearers may well indicate that these positions were not part of the festival at this time. Further parameters are supplied by the history of the metoikia at Athens: according to David Whitehead, the status was introduced at the end of the sixth century as part of the Kleisthenic

49

50

51

52

As implied by Ussher 1973: 179. Sommerstein, however, notes that the hydriaphoros is distinguished from the hydria and, evidently under the influence of the Parthenon frieze, suggests that the jar bearer was male; Sommerstein 1998: 205; cf. Wijma 2014: 48. Since the hydria, not the male slave who brought it outside, took part in the procession, his interpretation seems to be at odds with the text, which suggests that the hydriaphoroi were female at this time. Demetr. Phal. FGrHist 228 F5 (fr. 146 Wehrli); repeated by Harp., Phot. Lex., Suda s.v. σκαφηφόροι; Parker 2005: 258 note 25. Hydriai (occasion unspecified): Poll. Onom. 3.55 (wives not daughters); Phot. Lex. s.v. ὑδριαφόροι; cf. Hsch. s.v. ὑδριαφόροι. Parasols (occasion unspecified): Ael. VH 6.1; see also A. Mommsen 1898: 142 with note 1; Deubner 1932: 31 2 note 14; Ziehen 1949: 465 6; Parke 1977: 44; Simon 1983: 63, 65 6; Parker 2005: 258; Wijma 2014: 48 9. As these sources demonstrate, the Panathenaia was not the only occasion which involved girls carrying parasols, as Wijma claims; Wijma 2014: 49, 166. Sommerstein 1998: 205. Conceivably, athletes could be among the contingents at the end, because the scholia of the later Byzantine scholars Thomas and Triclinius on the Clouds include the information that athletes wearing the xystos made processions through the city; schol. Thom. Tricl. Ar. Clouds 70c. These scholars’ interest lay in explaining the word xystos, hence the absence of a specific occasion. The Panathenaia is one possibility, but so are, e.g. the Hephaisteia and the Olympieia. Since Demetrios of Phaleron specified that metics and their daughters (θυγατέρας) took part in processions, the metics must be adult men and not youths, as Wijma, on the evidence of the Parthenon frieze, claims; above note 50; Wijma 2014: 46, 62. It is not clear to me that the fragment of Deinarchos requires the skaphephoroi to be the same age as the ephebes, although such an age has sometimes been assumed; above note 17; Wijma 2014: 62; cf. Whitehead 1977: 88.

The Procession to the Goddess

reforms;53 of course, the positions in the parade may have been introduced later and at different times.54 Subsequently, bearing a tray ‘in the processions’ was one of the metics’ liturgies, according to the Lexeis Rhetorikai; presumably the positions for metic girls were also in this category.55 As such, these positions will have been among those affected when Demetrios of Phaleron abolished the liturgical system at some point between 317 and 307 bc.56 Consequently, when Demetrios came to write about these positions, he said that the law ‘used to require’ (προσέταττεν) the metics to perform them; perhaps the context concerned his changes to the liturgy system and the introduction of the agonothesia.57 Under this new system, the funding came from the agonothetes, as was also true for choruses, both at the Panathenaia and the Dionysia, but the positions themselves must have continued.58 Since the metoikia seems to have come to an end about 229 bc, when the Athenians bought their freedom from the Macedonians, metics’ roles in the Panathenaic procession must also have ceased by this time.59 Their presence, consequently, was a hallmark of the festival only in the classical and early Hellenistic periods. What happened to the trays with 53

54

55

56

57 59

Whitehead 1977: 143 7; contra: Kennedy 2014: 12 14 and Blok 2017: 265 74, both with further references. I remain unpersuaded by Watson’s attempt to place the invention of metic status in 451/0 as part of Perikles’ citizenship legislation; Watson 2010. For references to metics in the 460s, see Aisch. Supp. 609, 994 with Bakewell 1997; IG I3 244C.5 10; cf. Aisch. Cho. 684; Eum. 1011, 1018; Pers. 319. It is not clear to me how Wijma can identify the status of individuals depicted in vase painting; Wijma 2014: 165 6. In vase painting, the earliest representations of skaphephoroi in a ritual context appear in c. 510 and in c. 470; c. 510: Ruhr Universität, Bochum, S 1174: Gebauer 2002: 67 9 no. P 26, fig. 26; c. 470: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1911.617 ARV2 559, 152: Addenda2 259; van Straten 1995: 230 no. V195, fig. 145; Wijma 2014: 165 no. 1; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 20.244 ARV2 249, 9: Addenda2 203; Neils 2001: 144 fig. 106, 152 fig. 114; Wijma 2014: 165 no. 2. These images suggest that the skaphephoroi existed in processions by the period c. 510 470, but they do not tell us the status of the beardless young men depicted. Lexeis Rhetorikai s.v. μετοίκων λειτουργίαι, σκαφηφορεῖν (280, 1; 304, 27 Bekker); on metic liturgies, see Whitehead 1977: 80 2, 86 8; P. Wilson 2000: 25 31. G. Oliver 2007c: 196 7; P. Wilson 2000: 307 8; Mikalson 1998: 54 60; Habicht 1997: 54 7 with further references; cf. Wijma 2014: 46; contra: O’Sullivan 2009: 168 89. On the shift from choregia to agonothesia, see also Wilson and Csapo 2012; note that the agonothesia, the office of agonothetes, need not have been designed to function as it did in the years after 307, when it becomes visible in our evidence. Since Demetrios Poliorketes proclaimed that he was freeing Athens and also returning ‘the laws and the patrios politeia’ when he arrived at Mounichia in Thargelion of 308/7, the city had clearly just passed through a period of considerable unancestral law into which the changes to the liturgy system fit nicely; Plut. Demetr. 8.7. The introduction of the agonothesia is hardly consistent with the patrios politeia or ancestral constitution; evidently some innovations were retained after the city was freed. Above note 50. 58 Positions continue: compare Niku 2013: 54. Metoikia: above Chapter 2 note 139. Freedom: Plut. Arat. 34.5 6; Paus. 2.8.6; IG II2 834.10 14 IG II3.1 1160.10 14; Habicht 1997: 173 4, 179 80; Habicht 1982: 79 84; M. J. Osborne 1981 3 III IV: 187 8.

127

128

The Great Panathenaia

honeycombs and cakes and the hydriai with water after 229 is not explained by our testimonia. The items may no longer have been considered essential, but more probably they were now brought by other individuals who are not identifiable from our evidence. Roles in Athena’s procession were not limited to citizens and long-term residents of the city and their daughters, because the participation of colonists, and, in the later fifth century, allies, seems to have been a regular feature of the penteteric festivities (Table 4.5). Our earliest evidence for the presence of the city’s colonists belongs perhaps in the 440s or more likely 430s, when the decree concerning the foundation of a colony at Brea specifies that the colonists are to bring a cow and panoply to the Great Panathenaia.60 Such a requirement is not particularly surprising, because colonies had a regular obligation to participate in the festivals of the mother city, and failure to do so could be a cause of significant hostilities.61 In the decree reassessing tribute in 425/4, the allies ‘are to walk [in] the procession [just like colon]i[sts]’.62 By this time, we must, therefore, imagine contingents from multiple Athenian colonies marching up to the Akropolis; like the delegation from Brea, they also presumably brought gifts in the form of cows and panoplies for the goddess, and their presence reinforced their relationship with their mother city. The colonists’ participation is specifically connected with the great festival, and it nicely brings out its international focus in contrast to the local emphasis at the Little Panathenaia. Since colonies’ obligations to their mother cities already existed in the archaic period, the presence of such contingents at Athena’s celebration should not have been a new addition to the proceedings in the 440s.63 By 425/4, the Athenians were expecting their allies to participate in the procession in the same ways as their colonies. Moreover, these delegations could not arrive empty-handed, because ‘every one of them [is to bring] a co[w and panop]l[y to the] Gr[eat Panath]enaia’.64 The emphasis here is

60

61

62 63

64

IG I3 46.15 16; on the date: Meiggs and Lewis 1988: 132 3; Brulé 1996: 59 60; Woodhead 1997: 9 10; Mattingly 1974: 53 6; Rhodes 2008: 502, 505; Psoma 2009: 269 74, 279 80; Osborne and Rhodes 2017: 242 3. The colonists also have to bring a phallos to the Dionysia; IG I3 46.16 17. The decrees authorising the colonies at Thourioi (444) and Amphipolis (437) presumably contained parallel stipulations. As the events leading up to the Peloponnesian War demonstrate; Thuc. 1.25.2 4. Obligation: Graham 1983: 62 3, 159 65; cf. Jim 2014: 234 6. IG I3 71.57 8: πεμπόντον δ[ὲ ἐν] τ̣ε͂ι πομπε͂ι [καθάπερ ἄποι]κ[οι]. Colony obligations: Graham 1983: 161 3. For a list of Athenian colonies (excluding the allies), see M. H. Hansen 2004; 636 7. IG I3 71.55 7: βο͂ [ν καὶ πανhοπ]λ[ίαν ἀπάγεν ἐς Παναθ]έναια τὰ μ̣ε̣ [γάλα] hαπάσας. They have no additional obligations at the Dionysia, presumably because they brought the tribute at that time.

The Procession to the Goddess

on inclusion: from now on, every one of the allies (hαπάσας) will participate in this way.65 Such a stipulation only makes sense if some allies had already been sending delegations with offerings to the penteteric festival. The change in 425/4 is that henceforth all the allies will do so.66 Some of these allies, such as Miletos, could also claim to be colonies of Athens, and their participation may initially have begun because of this status, rather than their position as allies of the city. From an Athenian perspective, such a situation would have made the slide from colony to ally, which we see in the decree of 425/4, an obvious development. Delegations from all the allies, consequently, will have been a feature of the procession in the second half of the 420s, but some cities had begun taking part before 425. While such participation may have begun as early at 478, when the league was set up, a more likely occasion is in 454/3, when the league treasury was moved to Athens and the tribute began to be brought to the city.67 Consequently, the presence of at least some delegations of allies was a feature of the procession only in the second half of the fifth century. At least at the Great Panathenaia of 422 and perhaps also in 418 and 414, contingents from all the allies must have been present, so that they made the extent of the alliance visible in Athens. Their subsequent participation would have been determined by the cities’ continuing relationships with Athens; by the end of the war, very few such delegations would have come to the city. In the fourth century, the allies were not required to take part in the Panathenaia, as the absence of such a clause from the prospectus of the second league indicates.68 The participation of Athenian colonies, however, did not cease in the fourth century. In 372, an Athenian decree records that the Parians are to bring a cow and pano[ply] to the Panathenaia, since they are colonists (ἄποικοι) of the Athenians.69 In 326, the people of Priene voted to send 65

66

67

68 69

So also Meritt and Wade Gery 1962: 70 1; Meiggs and Lewis 1988: 199; Smarczyk 1990: 548; Osborne and Rhodes 2017: 320; contra: Fornara and Samons 1991: 181. The Greek text does not, in fact, support Fornara and Samons’ argument. Thus, it is not necessarily obvious that the stipulation about the cow and panoply in IG I3 34.41 3 must refer back to the reassessment decree of 425/4, as the newly developing orthodoxy would have it; Rhodes 2008: 503 note 4, 506 note 21; Osborne and Rhodes 2017: 327 8; cf. Mattingly 1987: 67; on this point, see also Meiggs 1972: 293. Since this clause has been used to date IG I3 34, the document’s date may also need further consideration. Compare Meritt and Wade Gery 1962: 71. Foundation of league: Thuc. 1.95.1 97.1; Arist. Ath. Pol. 23.4 5; Hdt. 8.3.2; transfer: IG I3 259; cf. Plut. Per. 12.1; Arist. 25.3. RO 22. RO 29.2 6. On the colonisation traditions at Paros, see helpfully Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 148. In contrast to the other examples, which we shall discuss shortly, the Parians also have to bring a phallos and cow to the Dionysia.

129

130

The Great Panathenaia

a procession and panoply each penteterid to the Great Panathenaia ‘as a memorial of our ancient kinship (συγγενείας) and current friendship towards’ the Athenians.70 Later on in the decree, sacrifices are mentioned;71 presumably, the gifts to the goddess included not only the now traditional panoply, but also a cow. In 307/6, the people of Kolophon, who are described elsewhere in the text as Athenian colonists, sent a [cro]wn and panoply to the great festival.72 In about 200 bc, the people of Priene once again voted to send a delegation and some item(s) to the Panathenaia, again since they were ‘friend[s and kinsmen] from ancient times’.73 In either 166 or 162, the Athenian klerouchs or overseas settlers on Delos, who were obviously relatives of the Athenians, sent a delegation to the Panathenaia to announce a gold crown in their own honour at the festival; they must also have taken part in the procession and brought gifts for the goddess.74 In the fourth century, the late third century and the mid second century, consequently, there is a clear pattern of participation by cities which claimed some form of kinship with the Athenians. In documents originating in the home cities and in decrees passed by the Athenians, this relationship was clearly acknowledged, and so also displayed. In the cases of the Kolophonians and the Athenians on Delos, it was publically proclaimed at the festival’s games when their gifts and honours were announced. In the fourth, third and second centuries, other cities with such claims to kinship may also have been sending delegations and taking part in the procession. In the years soon after 229 bc, further delegations were being solicited by the Athenians through the medium of spondophoroi, officials who announced the truces (spondai) for the Panathenaia and also the Eleusinia and the Mysteries; this process also marked the membership of the first two celebrations in the international class of ‘crowned games’, the number of which was expanding significantly around the Hellenistic world at this time.75 In this way, the spondophoroi publicised Athens’ festivals abroad, while the cities had to decide whether to participate and so to send delegations to the Athenian festivities; if they did take part, their contingents were protected during their journeys by the truce, which further 70 71 73

74

75

I.Priene 5.2 6 I.Priene 2014 5.2 6. On the date, see Chapter 1 note 2. I.Priene 5.10 15 I.Priene 2014 5.10 15. 72 IG II2 456b.3 8 with a.7 and b.14. IG II3.1 1239.4 5, 10 13 I.Priene 45.3 4, 9 12. On the problems of restoring the object(s) which the delegation brought, see the commentary on lines 10 13 in IG II3.1. I.Delos 1498.8 14. The festival in question must date after the foundation of the klerouchy in 167 and before the honorary inscription in 159/8. On the foundation, see Habicht 1997: 246 50 with further references. On the obligations of such delegations, see the discussion below. Announcement: IG II3.1 1145 Gonnoi II 109. ‘Crowned’ games: Parker 2004; Rutherford 2013 43 7; on the terminology, see Remijsen 2011.

The Procession to the Goddess

served to promote the Athenian celebrations.76 Since these officials are known from a copy of an Athenian decree found at Gonnoi in Thessaly, they travelled quite far from Athens, and did not confine their visits to cities which are known to have had previous connections with the Athenians, either as colonies or as allies, in the fifth or fourth centuries. Presumably the spondophoroi named in this decree announced the festivals in a whole series of cities in Thessaly and the surrounding area. Their activities were not limited to Greece, because, in 170/69, two such delegations went to Ptolemy VI in Egypt to announce the Panathenaia and the Mysteries.77 In contrast to the decrees for Paros, Priene and Kolophon, the Athenian decree about the announcement of the truces and the corresponding Gonnean document make no mention of kinship; instead, the Athenian text is generic, while the Gonnean decree is concise and without individualised features. Thus, soon after 229, the numbers of delegations in the procession at the Panathenaia must have increased significantly in response to the activities of the spondophoroi, who travelled widely.78 In some cases, cities were participating because, like the people of Priene, they were kinsmen from ancient times, while, in others, the cities had only recently begun to send contingents to the procession and did not have long-standing connections with Athens and her goddess. In addition to the Athenian military, the bearers of various ritual and sacred objects and the delegations from colonies and allies, the procession at the Great Panathenaia also included the peplos for the goddess and the device on which it was conveyed to the Akropolis. In the scholarship, this contraption is regularly identified as a ship, usually understood to be ‘lifesize’, as it were.79 The testimonia, however, suggest a rather more complicated situation (Table 4.6). Our earliest reference to the display of the peplos appears about 400 bc, but all the descriptions of the contraption as a ship belong no earlier than the middle of the second century ad. The earliest allusion may be extracted from a fragment of comedy written by Strattis in about 400 bc. As now preserved, the passage reads: ‘but this peplos, men without number, hauling with the rigging (τοπείοις), 76 77

78

79

Truces and delegations: Rutherford 2013: 189 with further references. Polyb. 28.19.4; on the date, see Walbank 1979: 354. Other spondophoroi are attested in the Seleukid kingdom during the period between 200 and 164 at the latest, but we do not know which festivals they were announcing; IG II3.1 1291.18 20 (date: 200/199); 1331.10 11 (date: 175 164). Such delegations evidently could be sizable: in the late third century, theoroi from Gonnoi were accompanied by the cavalry and the hipparchos when they travelled to some festival, perhaps at Athens; Helly 1973: 108. E.g. Parker 2005: 262; Mansfield 1985: 46 50, 68; cf. Norman 1983: 44 5.

131

132

The Great Panathenaia

drag to the top, just like the sail on a mast (ὥσπερ ἱστίον τὸν ἱστόν)’.80 Since we know these three lines from later quotations by the lexicographers, they are devoid of any context which might help us to understand exactly what is taking place. That the peplos should be equated with the Panathenaic robe is suggested by the usage of this word in Attic comedy: it is used either for the goddess’ garment or in parodies of tragedy.81 Although this peplos is being dragged up something by rigging, it is not, in fact, acting as a sail on a mast; instead, it is simply like a sail on a mast.82 Without further context or information, this passage provides no confirmation for the display of the robe on a ship in the procession, nor does it give us any indication about the size of this garment. It does, however, bring out the potential connections between Athena’s peplos and nautical terminology, particularly terms for rigging, mast and sail. These associations reappear in the early third century and the middle of the second century, when benefactors donated items for the conveyance of the robe: from Lysimachos came a mast and yardarm; from Ptolemy II Philadelphos, ropes; and from Miltiades, the son of Zoilos, hemp ropes and ‘other things lacking f[or the conveya]nce of the peplos’ (Table 4.6).83 In the cases of Lysimachos and Ptolemy II, the items are described simply as ‘for the peplos’, while, in Miltiades’ case, as ‘f[or the conveya]nce (πρ[ὸς τὴν κομιδή]ν) of the peplos’.84 While the items are linked closely with the robe for the goddess, there is no indication of the vehicle on which it is conveyed and certainly no reference to a ship (ναῦς) or a trireme (τριήρης), the terms which are used by our sources from the Roman period (Table 4.6). The contrast in terminology strongly suggests 80

81

82

83

84

Stratt. fr. 31 (PCG); quoted by Harp. s.v. τοπεῖον and repeated by Suda, Etym. Magn., Phot. Lex. s.v. τοπεῖον. Norman, without providing evidence, interprets this passage as referring to the wooden statue of Athena; Norman 1983: 44. For the date, see Kassel and Austin 1983 VII: 636. Lee 2004: 258 61. Beyond comedy, the term is used in classical Athens both in tragedy and also for the robe of Athena, a usage not discussed by Lee; e.g. Pl. Euthphr. 6c2 4; Arist. Ath. Pol. 49.3, 60.1; cf. schol. Ar. Knights 566a (I); Lee 2004: 261 79. Compare Norman 1983: 44. Only the scholia on Aelius Aristeides actually describe the peplos as a sail; schol. Aristeid. Or. 1.404 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 342 3 Jebb, 197, 8. Since the scholia report that the robe was woven at the festival, their worth as evidence is open to question, while the use of the imperfect tense indicates that they are clearly retrospective. The OLD cites [Verg.] Ciris 35, which belongs to the end of a description of the peplos at the Panathenaia, as an example of the word velum used for ‘a woven cloth of any material’; OLD s.v. velum 5. The word may also be used for an awning or a curtain. None of our evidence gives any indication about the size of the garment. The ropes (hόπ[λα?]) may appear in SEG LII 48 fr. 9B col. 1.11 12, dated to 410 404 bc and including earlier material. The text, however, is extremely fragmentary, and the context is, therefore, uncertain; cf. Lambert 2002a: 388 9. Peplos: IG II2 657.15 IG II3.1 877.15; SEG XXVIII 60.67 IG II3.1 911.67; conveyance: IG II2 968.49; Shear, Jr 1978: 40 1.

The Procession to the Goddess

that the elaborate ship float was not yet part of the procession.85 This conclusion is reinforced by the pseudo-Vergilian Ciris, which describes the peplos, the author’s main focus, as carried by a chariot (currus), a term which suggests a cart or waggon, but not a ship; the passage seems to belong to the middle of the first century bc.86 However exactly the robe was being displayed in the Hellenistic period, it required ropes and some other nautical equipment, but the full complement of gear which we would expect on a warship was not apparently used.87 At the same time, these testimonia provide us with no evidence for the size of either the equipment donated or the peplos itself.88 In contrast, the sources for the Roman period present a very different image of the vehicle for conveying the peplos. For them, it was large contraption which looked like a warship (Table 4.6); this ship-car dominates their descriptions, and the robe itself recedes into the background. It is specifically associated with the penteteric festival, rather than the annual celebration.89 The earliest contemporary account comes from Pausanias in the middle of the second century ad, who reports that the ship was made specifically for the Panathenaia. Philostratos provides a (retrospective) description of the earliest known ship-car, which was used for the same Panathenaia at which Herodes Atticus dedicated the new Panathenaic

85

86

87 88

89

Hence the absence of nautical terminology in the scholia on Aristophanes, Birds 827 and the statement that the Athenians ‘were accustomed to carry [the peplos] up [to the Akropolis] (ἀνέφερον) in the procession of the Panathenaia’; cf. Phot. Lex. s.v. ἱστὸς καὶ κεραία. Anyone who does wish to understand this vehicle as a ship in the classical and Hellenistic periods needs to explain its absence from the Hellenistic descriptions; cf. Shear, Jr 1978: 43 4. Since Wachsmann uses the terms ‘sacred ship’ and ‘cultic ship’ liberally, it is worth noting that only Himerios calls the vessel a sacred trieres; Him. Or. 47.12, 16; Wachsmann 2012. In classical Athens, of course, a sacred ship was a real boat like the Salaminia, and her tasks were not limited to the sphere of religion. The Salaminia and similar vessels, however, never performed the function of the Roman Panathenaic ship car. [Verg.] Ciris 21 35; on the currus in line 26, see Lyne 1978: 112; on the date of this passage, see Lyne 1978: 108 10. For a list, see e.g. IG II2 1628.576 608. It need not follow that the equipment donated by Lysimachos, Ptolemy II and Miltiades was taken from actual warships; contra: Shear, Jr 1978: 42 3. Schol. Ar. Knights 566a (I), repeated by 566c; Suda s.v. πέπλος. These scholia specify the route of the vehicle: it went from the Kerameikos to the Eleusinion; at the Eleusinion, the hill rises very steeply, and so the ship car stopped at this point. None of them can ever have proceeded through the Propylaia on the Akropolis, because its central door has a width of only 4.189 m; Shear, Jr 2016: 285 note 40. When the Beulé Gate was built after the Herulian invasion, the width of the door was less than 2 m, and no vehicle could go over the threshold and up the stairs on the inside of the gate; Tanoulas 1997: fig. 48. These topographical considerations explain why Himerios does not mention the Akropolis in his description of the ship car; contra: Remijsen 2015b: 163 note 104; Remijsen 2015a: 189.

133

134

The Great Panathenaia

stadium, probably in ad 143.90 This elaborate vessel moved by means of machinery rather than being pulled by animals and was equipped with 1,000 oars. It was clearly a large vessel, and it was subsequently displayed at the stadium, rather than at the Areiopagos, where Pausanias saw his vessel; these two authors presumably described two different vehicles. Contemporary evidence for the Panathenaic ship continues to appear in the third and fourth centuries ad; indeed, some of our latest evidence for the festival itself concerns the ship: at this time, it was clearly considered an important part of the proceedings. According to Himerios’ description, the vessel being used in the ad 370s was shaped like a ship on wheels and carried a crew of priests and priestesses; it was clearly a sizable vessel and very much a focal point of the proceedings.91 The peplos, by contrast, is absent from his description. All our evidence suggests that the large shipcar was an innovation of the Roman period for the Great Panathenaia. The vessel apparently given by Herodes Atticus when he was agonothetes in ad 143 is not described as the first such vessel, so presumably it had at least one predecessor. A possible moment for its introduction is the festival of ad 119, when the Panathenaia was raised by the emperor Hadrian to the class of eiselastic games, competitions in which victors had the right of processional entry to their home towns.92 Now that Athena’s celebration was on a par with the most important international competitions, such as the Olympia and the Pythia, it is likely that other parts of the proceedings received added embellishment. The addition of the elaborate ship-car to the procession would fit nicely into this context, where it would have reminded viewers of the city’s past naval successes, much as the victories in the Persian Wars were celebrated in other media and venues at this time.93 Our evidence for the procession at the Panathenaia is not limited to the literary and epigraphical sources, which often focus on specific details of the proceedings and do not give us an overall impression of the event. In contrast, the visual representations provide a broader, more synoptic view, which is particularly valuable because the evidence comes mostly from the sixth century bc (Tables 4.7–8). Several features connect these depictions 90

91

92 93

Tobin 1993: 81; contra: Ameling 1983 I: 61 2, II: 14 (139/40); Mansfield 1985: 75 (150/1?); Follet 1976: 334 (apparently before the 140s). That Herennius Dexippos dedicated the stern ornament or akr[osto]lion from the ship used when he was agonothetes of the Great Panathenaia suggests that this vessel was also sizable; IG II2 3198.7 12 IG II3.4 1398.7 12. Shear 2012d: 159 61 with further references. E.g. Aristeid. Or. 1.92 184; 22.6 (Lenz and Behr); Spawforth 1994; Alcock 2002: 74 86; Giannakopoulos 2013.

The Procession to the Goddess

135

with Athena’s procession. In the sixth-century vase paintings, the parade approaches the altar and the goddess, who is armed and, in the late examples, looks like the divinity of the prize vases (Table 4.7; Figs. 4.1–2).94 In four of the five versions, the scene includes thallophoroi, who, as we have seen, seem to have been unique to the Panathenaia. On the Parthenon frieze, the connection is assured not only by the context on the most important temple in the sanctuary of this festival, but also by the presence of the apobatai and the peplos, both of which belong only to the Panathenaia (Table 4.8; Figs. 4.3–4).95 Despite the statements of some scholars, consequently, there are good reasons to associate all these images with Athena’s festival.96 Of the sixth-century examples, the most important is the black-figure band cup now in the private collection of Stavros S. Niarchos and dated to about 550 bc (Fig. 4.5).97 It thus belongs to the years soon after the reorganisation of the festival, and it presents us with the fullest idea of what could be included in the procession (Table 4.7).98 It shows various

Figure 4.1 Fragmentary black figure lekythos by the Edinburgh Painter, c. 500 bc: sacrifice to Athena (National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 2298). The goddess looks like the divinity on the prize vases. 94 95

96

97

98

Prize vases: cf. Shapiro 1989: 30; Neils 1996a: 180. Apobatai: above Chapter 2 note 55. Peplos: Aristeid. Or. 1.404 (Lenz and Behr); schol. Ar. Knights 566a, c; schol. Ar. Birds 827; schol. vet. Eur. Hec. 467 (Schwartz); Suda s.v. πέπλος; cf. Ar. Birds 826 8; Arist. Ath. Pol. 60.1; schol. Pl. Resp. 1.327a. For the Parthenon frieze and the Panathenaic procession, see further below Appendix 2. Vase painting: contra: van Straten 1995: 14 18; cf. Shapiro 1992: 54. Niarchos Collection, A 031: Marangou 1995: 86 93, no. 12; Neils 1996a: 181 2, fig. 8.4; van Straten 1995: 14 17, 203 no. V55, fig. 2; Shapiro 1989: 29 30, pl. 9.a b; Demargne 1984: no. 574; Simon 1983: 63, pls. 16.2, 17.2; Parker 2005: 259 fig. 13. As van Straten notes, the vases show excerpts, and thus the procession may have included other elements which the painters, for their own reasons, chose not to show; van Straten 1995: 12.

136

The Great Panathenaia

Figure 4.2 Fragment of a black figure vase, end of the sixth century bc: sacrifice to Athena (National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1220). The goddess looks like the divinity on the prize vases.

Figure 4.3 Parthenon frieze, 447 440 bc: apobatic chariots and marshal from the procession (N63 5) (Akropolis Museum, Athens, block North XXIII).

The Procession to the Goddess

137

Figure 4.4 Parthenon frieze, 447 440 bc: the peplos scene (E31 5) (British Museum, London, block East V).

elements which we would expect from the written sources, the kanephoros, sacrificial animals and the thallophoroi, as well as the unmentioned musicians to accompany the hymns and songs. More importantly, it includes details which are not otherwise attested at this time, particularly the armed hoplites and the cavalryman at the end and the marshal by the hoplites.99 Strikingly, the sacrificial animals are not simply cows, but a bull, a sow and a ram. We saw in Chapter 3 that the sacrifices of the Salaminioi, and thus their pig for Athena, seem to go back to the archaic period.100 When we discuss the penteteric sacrifices, we shall see that a sheep was regularly sacrificed to Pandrosos after a cow was given to Athena.101 As this cup indicates, both of these sacrifices were already part of the proceedings in the middle of the sixth century.102 The combination evidently made an impression on the vase painters: Lydos also chose to show this group escorted by at least two thallophoroi on a now fragmentary dinos from the Akropolis (Fig. 4.6).103 To emphasise the connection with Athena, the animals are placed on the register below Zeus’ chariot in 99 101

102

103

For the Athenian cavalry, see further below Chapter 6. 100 Above Chapter 3. Philoch. FGrHist 328 F10; repeated by Harp. s.v. ἐπίβοιον; cf. Suda s.v. ἐπίβοιον and Etym. Magn. s.v. ἐπίβοιον καὶ ἐπιβόϊον; see also the discussion below. Thus, the sacrifice does not require us to disassociate the image from Athena’s festival, as van Straten claims; van Straten 1995: 15 18. Nor is it a trittys sacrifice, which only took place in the sixth century, as Brandt and Neils suggest; Brandt 2012: 158 65; Neils 2007: 45. Above Chapter 2 note 16; van Straten 1995: 17 18, 196 no. V13, fig. 6; Meyer 2017: 211 12.

Figure 4.5 Black-figure band cup, c. 550 bc: sacrificial procession to Athena (Stavros S. Niarchos Collection, A 031).

The Procession to the Goddess

Figure 4.6 Fragment of a black figure dinos by Lydos, c. 560 550 bc: top register: chariot of Zeus from the Gigantomachy; middle register: sacrificial procession (National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 607e).

139

140

The Great Panathenaia

the Gigantomachy, the whole reason for celebrating the Panathenaia. Although they are less complicated, the representations from later in the century in no way contradict our two early examples (Table 4.7; Figs. 4.1–2, 7).104 As these depictions make clear, in the middle of the sixth century, the procession at the Panathenaia was already a complex affair with different roles for (many) different participants. Our second overall image of Athena’s parade is provided by the Parthenon frieze, which was being carved in the 440s and must represent the situation in about 450.105 Although it includes many more figures and is much more complex visually, it maps quite well on to the sixth-century depictions and especially on to the band cup (Table 4.8; Fig. 4.8). Unlike on the band cup, thallophoroi and hoplites are not included, although, in reality, both groups probably did participate in the middle of the fifth century (Tables 4.2–3). More striking are the divergences from our other evidence. Unlike the sixthcentury examples, the frieze shows not only multiple kanephoroi (Fig. 4.9), but also other, adult females (Table 4.8; Fig. 4.10). Skaphephoroi (Fig. 4.11), hydriaphoroi (Fig. 4.12) and apobatai (Fig. 4.3) are all present, but diphrophoroi and parasol-bearers are absent.106 Although our written texts describe the hydriaphoroi as female, on the frieze, they are certainly male (Fig. 4.12). Evidently, the roles in the procession changed between the middle and the end of the fifth century. On the frieze, the male skaphephoroi are likely to be metics; the absence of their daughters suggests that, at this time, these girls did not yet have roles in the proceedings. If these conclusions are correct, in the second half of the fifth century, the parade at the Great Panathenaia was not unchanging, and it evidently underwent a considerable amount of modification which is unattested in our written sources (Table 4.9). While these archaic and classical representations provide us with a general view of the procession, a further relief focuses only on the ship-car, which illustrates the month Hekatombaion in the Calendar Frieze now built into the Church of Agios Eleutherios or Little Metropolis in Athens. Since a large cross has been cut into the relief, at least part of the vehicle has been effaced, so that 104

105

106

Later examples: Staatliche Museen, Berlin, F 1686 ABV 269, 4: van Straten 1995: 15 16, 197 no. V21, fig. 4; Shapiro 1989: 30, pl. 9.c d; Shapiro 1992: 54 5, fig. 34; Demargne 1984: no. 575; Neils 1996a: 180 1; Meyer 2017: 241 2. National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 2298 ABL 216, 8: Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 96; Neils 1996a: 180 1, fig. 8.3; van Straten 1995: 15 16, 197 no. V19, fig. 3; Shapiro 1989: 30, pl. 10a. National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1220: Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 67; Shapiro 1989: 30, pl. 10b; Demargne 1984: no. 577. Because the frieze had to be designed before it could carved; on the date, see Shear, Jr 2016: 68 and cf. 25, 44 5, 48, 58 9, 63 4, all with further references. The apobatai map nicely on to the musings of Strepsiades’ wife in the Clouds: when he grows up, her son will drive a chariot up to the Akropolis, a context which must be the Panathenaia; Ar. Clouds 69 70.

The Procession to the Goddess

141

Figure 4.7a Black figure amphora, c. 540 bc: side B: musicians in a sacrificial procession (Staatliche Museen, Berlin, F 1686). The composition continues on side A.

142

The Great Panathenaia

Figure 4.7b Black figure amphora, c. 540 bc: side A: sacrificial procession to Athena (Staatliche Museen, Berlin, F 1686).

The Procession to the Goddess

143

Peplos scene

Tray-bearers

Tray-bearers

Figure 4.8 The organisation of the Parthenon frieze, 447 440 bc.

Figure 4.9 Parthenon frieze, 447 440 bc: marshals and kanephoroi in the procession (E49 56) (Musée du Louvre, Paris, block East VII, inv. Ma 738).

only the front is clearly preserved on the worn frieze. Visible is the prow of the vessel, which is supported by two very large wheels.107 Since it illustrates the month Hekatombaion, there can be no doubt that it is the ship-car from 107

Palagia 2008: 229 fig. 11; Wachsmann 2012: 241 fig. 1b. I am considerably less convinced than Wachsmann that significant other traces of the vehicle are now visible; Wachsmann 2012: 240 7. The problems of using archaic vase paintings and randomly preserved classical ship models to restore a Roman relief ought to be self evident, but they are not addressed by Wachsmann.

144

The Great Panathenaia

Figure 4.10 Parthenon frieze, 447 440 bc: females in the procession (E57 61) (British Museum, London, block East VIII). Both adult women and unmarried girls are shown in this section.

Athena’s festival, which, when the frieze was carved, was understood as iconic of this celebration. Although scholars have placed the monument variously in the late Hellenistic or Roman periods, Olga Palagia rightly points out that its year starts with Augustus’ birthday, and so it must be Roman in date; the treatment of the men’s beards is appropriate for the second century ad.108 The presentation here also fits with our literary evidence, which shows that the big ship-car had certainly been introduced by the Panathenaia of 143, and it had become an integral part of written descriptions of the procession (Table 4.6). With its very prominent wheels, the vehicle on the frieze should not be identified with Herodes Atticus’ special ship.109 Since the frieze cannot be closely dated on our present evidence, it does not provide any indication for the date when the ship was added to the parade.110

108

109 110

Palagia 2008: 215 17, 233 4. I cannot follow her placement of the frieze in ad 138/9, because Byrne has shown that the year was ordinary and not intercalary, as Palagia’s argument requires; Byrne 2003: 503, 506 7; Shear 2012d: 162. Shear, Jr 1978: 43 note 117. None of the other representations of the ship car which have been adduced by scholars can be linked to the festival. The bronze lamp from the Erechtheion (Akropolis Museum, Athens, EAM X 7038) and the marble model named Minokia from the Kerameikos (Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, P 950) are simply representations of ships, while the battered relief

The Procession to the Goddess

Figure 4.11 Parthenon frieze, 447 440 bc: a skaphephoros in the procession (N13) (British Museum, London, block North V).

As this discussion of the various elements of the procession at the Great Panathenaia has made clear, it was a very complex event, which included a significant variety of roles for participants. Many of these positions were for fragment from the Eleusinion (Α΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, ΠΛ 863) does not show any obvious connection with the festival; Wachsmann 2012: 248 61.

145

146

The Great Panathenaia

Figure 4.12 Parthenon frieze, 447 440 bc: hydriaphoroi who are followed by auletai in the procession (N16 20) (Akropolis Museum, Athens, block North VI). The hydriaphoroi are clearly male.

Athenians: officials of the city, hoplites and cavalry, thallophoroi, kanephoroi (the daughters of citizens); in the fifth, fourth and third centuries bc, roles also existed first for metics as skaphephoroi and later for their daughters as diphrophoroi and parasol-bearers. Delegations also came from beyond Athens and Attica from Athenian colonies and from cities claiming such kinship status. In the later fifth century, the city’s allies were also included. After 229 bc, the Athenians actively solicited contingents from cities such as Gonnoi which had no previous relationship with Athens. Together, these different groups made up the community of ‘all the Athenians’ which came together in the procession in order to go to the Akropolis to sacrifice to Athena. The different elements of this procession were certainly not permanently fixed. Some of the changes will have been the results of overtly political

The Procession to the Goddess

147

Figure 4.13 Parthenon frieze, 447 440 bc: sacrificial sheep with their handlers in the procession and a marshal (N10 12) (Akropolis Museum, Athens, block North IV).

decisions, such as the institution of the Kleisthenic system in 508/7 bc, the invention of the position of the prytaneis in the late 460s, the establishment of the ephebate in the fourth century and the creation of the status of metic and its subsequent demise in about 229 bc.111 Wars and alliances will also have affected who took part, particularly in the middle and second half of the fifth century, when the empire was at its height. In some cases, modifications over time are visible, such as the shift from male hydriaphoroi in the 440s to female hydriaphoroi by the end of the century and the introduction of the elaborate ship-car in perhaps the early second century ad, but the reasons for these developments are not explained in our sources. Change over time, consequently, seems to have been the norm, rather than the exception, and it must be factored into our discussions 111

Prytaneis: Rhodes 1981: 16 19; ephebes: above note 19 and Chapter 3 note 53; metics: above note 53 and Chapter 2 note 139.

148

The Great Panathenaia

about the procession. Consequently, we can neither retroject Roman evidence back to the fifth and fourth centuries nor project archaic and classical evidence forward into the Roman period on the mistaken notion that nothing changed over the span of about 945 years when the procession is attested in some form in our existing evidence. Rather, changes, both great and small, will have occurred repeatedly in the parade, as elsewhere in the festivities. Irrespective of the details, however, the event will always have had the same primary purpose: to conduct all the necessary people, animals and equipment to the Akropolis so that the goddess could be honoured with sacrifices and other gifts.

The Sacrifices for Athena Despite scholars’ fixations, the procession on 28 Hekatombaion at the Great Panathenaia was merely the prelude to the most important part of the proceedings: the sacrifices by the city and other related groups and the presentation of gifts to the goddess. Prayers were an integral part of these rituals. Through them, the city called on the goddess and explained to her on whose behalf these offerings were being made. In this way, specific groups were singled out for divine attention. The prayers also helped to articulate the dynamics at work for the human participants and the spectators present on the Akropolis. Through these rituals, ‘all the Athenians’ created and maintained their reciprocal relationships with Athena, the whole purpose of the entire festival. Their actions also produced an abundance of meat, a fact noted by the scholia on Aristophanes’ Clouds.112 When it was divided up, it marked out the members of the sacrificial community from other less privileged participants and from mere spectators. In this way, these sacrifices also served as an important moment for the creation of different identities among ‘all the Athenians’. Of course, the abundance of meat also provided the opportunity for significant feasting, and so also fun and enjoyment, which Aristophanes could imagine as ending with stomach aches for the participants!113 As the central and most important ritual of the festival, the sacrifices will always have been part of the proceedings. Thus, Philochoros in the earlier third century could imagine them (and the kanephoroi with their baskets) as existing in Erichthonios’ day (Table 4.3), while, in another 112 113

Schol. vet. Ar. Clouds 386a; cf. schol. Thom. Tricl. Ar. Clouds 386b. Ar. Clouds 386 7.

The Sacrifices for Athena

tradition, the hero’s foundation of the festival included sacrifices, as we saw in Chapter 2. Already in about 550 bc on the band cup in the Niarchos Collection (Fig. 4.5), the sacrificial animals appear prominently at the beginning of the procession, as they do on the Parthenon frieze in the 440s (Fig. 4.8). In the testimonia, these offerings are mentioned well into the second century bc, although not always with many details, and they reappear in the earlier third century ad in a description of events in the reign of Nero (Table 4.10). Our written sources, and especially the inscriptions, show that the sacrifices were given not only by the city as a whole, the source of the (famous) hekatomb,114 but also by a variety of subgroups of the city and other related entities (Table 4.10). As we saw in discussing the Little Panathenaia, the demes of Skambonidai and Thorikos were contributing sacrificial animals to both the annual and the penteteric festival.115 In contrast, the deme of Plotheia offered sacrifices at the penteteric festivals, which included the Great Panathenaia.116 Since these sacrifices created and maintained reciprocal relations between the individual demes and the goddess, the offerings were probably not limited to the period between about 460 and about 420 when they are attested in the epigraphical sources. It is also likely that many more demes were also making such contributions at the penteteric celebrations; perhaps the victims were conveyed by the deme contingents which the involvement of the demarchoi presupposes. The tribes must also have sent animals, because Demosthenes reports that he feasted his tribe at the Panathenaia; this role of the hestiator is confirmed by the Patmian scholia which specifically associate the feasts with the Dionysia and Athena’s festival.117 As hestiator, Demosthenes paid for the feast, an expenditure which presumably included the animal offered in the name

114

115 116

117

IG I3 375.6 7; cf. the very fragmentary SEG LII 48 fr. 9B col. 1.11, which may also be for the Great Panathenaia. If Hesychios is correct that the metic skaphephoroi shared in the sacrifices, then their shares presumably came from the hekatomb; above note 40. There is no evidence to support Brandt’s contention that the hekatomb was first introduced by Peisistratos in the late 540s bc; Brandt 2012: 166. Above Chapter 3. They also contributed to the sacrifices ‘for the Athenians on behalf of the community of the Plotheians’, a group which might, perhaps, include the annual festival. Dem. 21.156 with the Patm. schol. Dem. 20.21 (Sakkélion 147). The Patmian scholia have a different history than the main scholia and preserve additional information; see briefly Dickey 2007: 51 2. Demosthenes 21.156 appears to indicate that a man provided a feast at one festival and not at both the Panathenaia and the Dionysia; contra: P. Wilson 2000: 317 note 60; Schmitt Pantel 1992: 122.

149

150

The Great Panathenaia

of the tribe to the goddess.118 Each tribe will have been so represented at the sacrifices. As at the annual celebration, the genos of the Salaminioi offered a pig to Athena, a gift attested both in the middle of the sixth century and in the 360s. Very likely, other gene were also sending victims and maintaining their reciprocal relations with the goddess. As with the Salaminioi, their participation was probably already part of the festival in the sixth century. In contrast, the demes and the tribes mark an addition made at the end of the century, when the Kleisthenic system was introduced. At that time, these new sacrifices included all Athenians, irrespective of social class, in the feasts previously held by the (elite) gene and mark an important change brought about in the festival by the new political system.119 Although these various sacrifices are best attested in the classical period, it seems likely that they continued into the Hellenistic period, even though the tribal sacrifices and accompanying feasts, as a liturgy, must have been affected by the termination of the liturgy system between 317 and 307; perhaps now the agonothetes funded the expense.120 Irrespective of period, the participation of these subgroups will have affected not only the number of animals given to the goddess, but also the composition and appearance of the procession, because these sacrificial victims together with their handlers marched to the goddess along with the beasts offered by the city. In this way, the contingents made the subgroups visible both in the parade and then later at the sacrifices when they renewed their reciprocal relationships with Athena. At the sacrifices, these subgroups of the city were joined by contingents sent by Athenian colonies (Table 4.10); as we saw when we discussed the procession, they usually brought with them both a cow and a panoply for the goddess (Table 4.5). Although their presence is only briefly attested in the epigraphical record, the cows sent by the Athenian colonies (ἄποικοι) are mentioned by the scholia on Aristophanes’ Clouds when they note the abundance of meat at the festival (Table 4.10). That such information 118

119 120

Contra: Schmitt Pantel 1992: 129 30. Some idea of the expenses involved may be suggested by the list of prizes, which awards three oxen worth 300 drachmai and 200 drachmai for a feast to the victorious team (presumably of 200 men) in the contests of ships; SEG LIII 192.139 41. In this text, oxen are regularly worth 100 drachmai. Compare Schmitt Pantel 1992: 124 5. Liturgy: Dem. 20.21, 39.7; MacDowell 1990: 375; Schmitt Pantel 1992: 121 5; P. Wilson 2000: 24. Termination of liturgies: above note 56. A sacrifice by the Athenian technitai of Dionysos at the Panathenaia has been restored in IG II2 1330.51. Despite its acceptance by recent commentators, there are no grounds for this restoration; Kotsidu 2000: no. 45; Le Guen 2001: no. 5; Aneziri 2003: no. A3.

The Sacrifices for Athena

entered the scholiastic traditions suggests that the colonies’ cows were an identifiable and regular part of the sacrifices and that they were more numerous than the extant epigraphical sources might suggest. In the second half of the fifth century, the animals offered to the goddess will also have included the cows from (some of) the allies; in 422 and perhaps 418 and 414, all the allies must have presented such offerings to Athena. At those particular festivals, the abundance of meat must have been truly spectacular and presumably much enjoyed. Collectively, our evidence shows a very clear pattern of participation in the sacrifices during the archaic, classical and early Hellenistic periods: sacrifices were offered by the city, her subgroups and her colonies (Table 4.10). For perhaps about ten to twelve years after 425/6, Athenian allies also took part and were treated almost as colonies of the city.121 Significantly, during these periods, no other individuals or groups are attested as having made such offerings to the goddess. In this way, giving the animals to Athena clearly demarcated the boundaries of the sacrificial community of ‘all the Athenians’ and distinguished between them and everyone else. As we saw when we discussed the procession, the situation changed in the years after 229 bc, when the Athenians began soliciting delegations from cities such as Gonnoi which had no previous connections with the Athenians. When the cities approached by the spondophoroi decided to accept their invitation and to send a delegation or theoria to the Panathenaia, they were then obligated to bring offerings, most especially sacrificial animals to give to the goddess.122 These gifts enabled the participation of these delegations both in the procession and, more importantly, in the sacrifices to Athena. In this way, these cities will (now) have been marked as part of the community of ‘all the Athenians’. Since at least some of these cities, such as Gonnoi,123 had no previous connections with Athens and had presumably not been sending delegations before the necessary legislation was implemented soon after 229, their presence marked a significant change in their relationships both with Athens and 121

122

123

Thus, Naiden’s estimates for the total number of animals sacrificed are much too low; Naiden 2013: 256, 263. Rutherford 2013: 53 4. Some of the lexicographical sources specifically link theoroi or delegates with making sacrifices at the games; Phot. Lex., Synagoge (Cunningham, MS B) s.v. ἀρχιθεωρός; Lexeis Rhetorikai s.v. ἀρχιθεωρός (199, 17 Bekker) repeated by Etym. Magn. s.v. ἀρχιθεωρός. Since the Athenian decree specifies that the names of the theorodokoi, who received the spondophoroi, are to be recorded along with the cities accepting the truce, the selection of a theorodokos at Gonnoi and the inscription of both documents together in the sanctuary of Athena at Gonnoi must indicate that the city accepted the invitation; IG II3.1 1145.1 9, 35 43; contra: Helly 1973: 123. Helly believed that Gonnoi II 108 and 110 also related to the city’s participation in the Athenian festivals; Helly 1973: 120, 128 9.

151

152

The Great Panathenaia

with Athena: now they were insiders, whereas before they had been outsiders. The legislation also had important consequences for the festival and its creation of the community of ‘all the Athenians’, which we shall discuss in more detail in Chapter 7. Since these various sources for the sacrifices (Table 4.10) are not providing regulations for the Great Panathenaia, they do not focus on the divinity. Athena, as the goddess honoured at the festival, must have been the main recipient in her guise as Polias. Perhaps there were also offerings to her as Athena Nike and as Athena Hygieia and also in the ar[chaios neos], as there were at the Little Panathenaia by the late 330s.124 Nike certainly received dedications at a Great Panathenaia soon after 262, probably in 258.125 At some point in the year, the ephebes of the archonship of Demetrios (123/2) escorted a cow in a procession to Athena Nike and sacrificed it to her on the Akropolis.126 The occasion is not specified, but it would fit with the Panathenaia and the other offerings which were at least occasionally made to her at the festival.127 As at the annual celebration, they were presumably made at the same time as the sacrifices to Athena Polias. Other divinities also seem to have been given offerings at the festival. Philochoros reports that whenever a cow was sacrificed to Athena, it was always necessary to offer a sheep to Pandrosos.128 This specification recalls the sheep in the visual representations of the procession: on the band cup, the fragment of the dinos by Lydos and the Parthenon frieze (Table 4.8; Figs. 4.5–6, 13).129 Since the epiboion, as Pandrosos’ sheep was known, was mentioned by Staphylos in the first half of the second century bc, the offering seems to have had quite a long history.130 Sacrifices to other divinities may have varied according to the particular circumstances of a specific festival. The athlothetai honoured in the archonship of Athenodoros appear to have sacrificed at some point to [Apollo Prostat]erios and perhaps to other divinities on behalf of the boule and the 124 125 126 127 128

129

130

Above Chapter 3. IG II2 677.1 6 IG II3.1 1034.1 6; on the date, see below Chapter 6 note 67. IG II2 1006.14 15 Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 26.14 15. For other suggestions, see Pélékidis 1962: 253 4 with further bibliography; Mikalson 1998: 249. Philoch. FGrHist 328 F10; repeated by Harp. s.v. ἐπίβοιον; cf. Suda, Phot. Lex. s.v. ἐπίβοιον; Etym. Magn. s.v. ἐπίβοιον καὶ ἐπιβόϊον. According to Harpokration, Lykourgos also used the word ἐπίβοιον in his speech concerning the priestess; Lykourg. fr. 6.8 (Conomis). The sheep in these representations suggests that we should not dismiss this information entirely, despite the absence of information about its original context; see Parker 2005: 263 4 note 47. For gods and heroes linked in cult, see, for example, Pelops at Olympia; Ekroth 2012 with further references; more generally Parker 2011: 114. For some (Attic) epigraphical examples, see e.g. NGSL 1.52 6; SEG LII 48 fr. 3A.60 76; RO 37.90 2, 93. Staphylos FGrHist 269 F1; repeated by Harp. s.v. ἐπίβοιον.

The Sacrifices for Athena

demos.131 Since the inscription is very fragmentary at this point, the exact occasion is lost; perhaps it took place when the offerings were made to Athena. Victims may also have been given to other figures of cult at other points in the festival. The most obvious candidates are Harmodios and Aristogeiton, whose cult should have been located at their tomb and probably took place before the procession on 28 Hekatombaion.132 The animals immolated to Athena were accompanied by prayers, as was customary for both group and individual sacrifices.133 These prayers certainly articulated the actions of the Athenians and their relationship(s) to the goddess, as well as including requests on their behalf.134 The process ensured that there was no ambiguity about what was taking place, while it also made a bid for Athena’s attention. These prayers, however, were not made simply on the behalf of ‘the Athenians’ and their ‘health and safety’.135 Herodotos reports that, from the battle of Marathon down to his own day, the Athenian herald prays at the penteteric festivals that ‘there will be good things (τὰ ἀγαθά) for both the Athenians and the Plataians’.136 In this way, the Athenians’ stalwart allies from the Persian Wars were particularly drawn to the goddess’ attention, and their especially close relationship to the city was emphasised. Since Herodotos’ work does not seem to have been published until about 420, this passage suggests that the Athenians continued to include the Plataians in their prayers after the destruction of Plataia in 427.137 In the later fifth century, the Chians also seem to have been regularly mentioned in the prayers of the Athenians at public sacrifices.138 According to Theopompos, the gods were asked to give ‘good things’ (τἀγαθά), while, in the Birds, the request is for ‘the health and safety’ (ὑγίειαν καὶ σωτηρίαν) of the sacrificing community and the Chians.139 As these two passages demonstrate, the ranking which is so evident in the procession did not cease when the participants reached the Akropolis; instead, it continued to be carried out in the sacrifices and the prayers. At the same time, the passages also suggest that not every colony and ally was mentioned individually. Similarly, there were probably too many subdivisions of the city to mention each one by name. More likely, 131

132 134 136 138

139

IG II2 784.11 13 IG II3.1 1022.11 13: [ἔθυσαν δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς βουλῆς κ]|αὶ τοῦ δήμου [τοῦ ]. Ἀθηναίων vv τῶι τε Ἀπόλλωνι τῶι Προστατ]|ηρίωι κ[αὶ Shear 2012b: 117; above Chapter 2. 133 Above Chapter 3 note 35. Compare Furley 2007: 122 7; Pulleyn 1997: 7 8. 135 Health and safety: Parker 2005: 413. Hdt. 6.111.2. 137 Publication: Fornara 1971; Thomas 2006: 60 1. Ar. Birds 877 80; Theopomp. FGrHist 115 F104; repeated by schol. Ar. Birds 880b. Presumably the revolt of the Chians in 412 marked the end of the inclusion of the Chians in the Athenians’ prayers; Thuc. 8.14.2 15.1. Compare IG II3.1 416.11 16.

153

154

The Great Panathenaia

the sacrifices and prayers took place in groups: the city sacrifice (and hekatomb) with prayer for special groups such as the Plataians and the Chians; the sacrifices for the demes, for the tribes and for the gene with the appropriate generic subgroup in the prayers; then the animals of the colonies with suitable invocations to the goddess; and finally, after 425, those of the allies, again with the appropriate prayers. In the Hellenistic period, the form of some of the prayers at the Panathenaia may be extrapolated from the sacrifices offered at other city festivals. In 267/6, the epimeletai or managers of the Mysteries sacrificed ‘on behalf of the health and safety of the boule and the demos and all others who are well disposed and friends of the demos’, while, in 266/5, the archon and the epimeletai of the Dionysia sacrificed ‘on behalf of the health and safety of the boule and the demos of the Athenians and of the fruits in the countryside’.140 Such formulations seem normal at this period after the revolution from Demetrios Poliorketes and before the city’s defeat in the Chremonidean War, which was ongoing when these sacrifices were made. At Athena’s festival, it seems likely that prayers were offered ‘on behalf of the health and safety of the boule and the demos of the Athenians’ among others. After the city came back under Macedonian control in the summer of 262, the formulations changed, so that the priestess of Aglauros sacrificed in 250/49 ‘on behalf of the boule and demos of the Athenians and children and women and on behalf of King Antigonos and Queen Phila and their children’.141 Obviously, such phrases were not appropriate after Athens bought back her freedom in 229. In 215/14, the epimeletai of the Mysteries made sacrifices ‘on behalf of the boule and demos and children and women’; later, in 165/4, the demarchos at Eleusis immolated victims ‘on behalf of the boule and demos and children and women and friends and allies’.142 It seems likely that the city’s sacrifices at the Panathenaia would have been accompanied by similar prayers which also reflected the Athenians’ changing political circumstances. Further modifications will also have been necessitated by the new delegations solicited by the 140

141

142

IG II2 661.17 19 IG II3.1 915.17 19; 668.8 10 IG II3.1 920.6 10; cf. e.g. IG II2 689.8 10, 18 20 IG II3.1 903.9 10, 17 20; 690.1 3 IG II3.1 953.2 4; 807.24 8 IG II3.1 1188.24 8; Mikalson 1998: 133 4. SEG XXXIII 115.21 5 IG II3.1 1002.21 5; cf. e.g. IG II2 775.12 13 IG II3.1 1020.15 18; 776.6 10 IG II3.1 1026.6 10; 780.7 12 IG II3.1 995.7 12; Mikalson 1998: 160 1. End of Chremonidean War: Apollodoros FGrHist 244 F44 with Dorandi 1990: 130; M. J. Osborne 2009: 90. IG II2 847.13 16 IG II3.1 1164.13 16; 949.15 17; cf. IG II2 807.2 5, 24 8 IG II3.1 1188.2 5, 24 8; 1011.68 9, 77 8; IG II3.1 1182.10 12; Agora XVI 284.11 15 IG II3.1 1329.11 15; Mikalson 1998: 181, 225, 274.

The Sacrifices for Athena

spondophoroi. The emphasis which the people of Priene put on their status as ‘friend[s and kinsmen] from ancient times’ contrasts with the absence of such terms in the decrees connected with the spondophoroi.143 Evidently, not all the delegations were regarded equally warmly, and these distinctions probably also played out when the sacrifices were offered and the accompanying prayers were made. In this way, neither the goddess nor anyone else would have been left with any uncertainty about the relationships of all these different cities to the Athenians. Once the sacrifices and prayers had been offered to the goddess, the abundance of meat could then be divided among the participants. We must imagine a situation quite similar to that at the Little Panathenaia. Special portions were probably allocated to individuals with important roles in the proceedings, and much of the meat from the city animals was probably distributed to the participating Athenians by deme. If a man’s own deme had made its own sacrifices, then that meat will also have been portioned out to the demesmen.144 Members of gene, such as the Salaminioi, will also have received a portion from their genos’ offering. The meat from the tribes’ sacrifices apparently went to a feast provided by the tribal hestiator. Thus, as at the annual festival, some Athenians received multiple shares which reflected their membership in different subgroups of the city. Since the meat for Skambonidai is to be given out in the deme’s agora, as we saw in Chapter 3, the meat for the different demes may well have been given out in different places within the city. In contrast, the colonies, allies and, after 229, the other participating cities probably received only the meat from their own animal. Although they probably got much more actual flesh per person, in symbolic terms, they received less than the Athenians, because they only belonged to one group within ‘all the Athenians’. Thus, the ranking visible in the procession, sacrifices and prayers also played out when the meat was distributed. Rather than emphasising the unity of ‘all the Athenians’, as was the case on the Akropolis, the division of the meat focused on differences within the overall group and brought out the distinctions between the various subgroups. The sacrifices and the accompanying rituals served both as the culmination of the procession and as the most important moment in the overall festival, when the reciprocal relations between the goddess and her people were renewed and strengthened, or so the participants undoubtedly hoped. In fact, the dynamics were considerably more complex, because they 143 144

Above notes 73, 75. Although not in the case of Thorikos, because their meat is to be sold; above Chapter 3 with note 34.

155

156

The Great Panathenaia

operated not only at the level of the city as a whole, but also at the level of the different subgroups; also included were the Athenians’ colonies, their allies in the years after 425 and, in the years after 229, further, otherwise unrelated cities. Together all these different groups made up the sacrificial community of ‘all the Athenians’, but, at the same time, the goddess’ attention needed to be drawn to the individual groups so that they could ensure their continuing reciprocity with Athena, hence the prayers, which may have been rather more complex than our meagre evidence might suggest. While the goddess was the main and most important audience for all these activities, they also played out at the level of humans by clearly demarcating the constituent members of the sacrificial community of ‘all the Athenians’ and the boundaries of the group. Not all of these members were equal, as the distribution of the abundance of meat will have clearly brought out. Thus, from a human perspective, ranking was an important aspect not only of the procession, but also of all the rituals which followed in the sanctuary, and it culminated when the meat was apportioned according to an individual’s membership in the various groups and subgroups involved. Indeed, some groups in the procession may have received nothing at all from the sacrifices: unless we follow Hesychios, meat was not given to the metics (and their daughters), and a similar pattern also seems to have existed with the Little Panathenaia. Probably Athenian women and children who were not among the cult personnel or the bearers of sacred objects also were not given portions, as seems to have been true at the annual celebration.145 In this way, membership in the group of ‘all the Athenians’ will have been constituted differently at different moments on 28 Hekatombaion, so that the procession, sacrifices and prayers were more inclusive than the distribution of meat afterwards. The sacrifices and prayers, however, were also the points which connected the human participants with the goddess, the focus of this whole part of the festivities.

Gifts for the Goddess The role of the procession was not limited to conveying the sacrificial animals to the Akropolis, where they would be sacrificed to the goddess. It also served as a means of bringing other, imperishable gifts to the sanctuary so that they could be presented to Athena. The peplos which was given to the goddess by the Athenians was the most famous of these 145

Above Chapter 3.

Gifts for the Goddess

gifts, but it was not the only such item presented to her. In the fifth and fourth centuries, it was accompanied by the panoplies brought by the city’s colonies and allies (Table 4.5), while in the earlier part of the fourth century, the Athenians were also dedicating gold crowns to Athena (Table 4.11). Individuals could also present gifts to the goddess at the Great Panathenaia. These various objects were not chosen at random; instead, they linked quite closely with the various festival themes which we discussed in Chapter 2 or they consisted of sacred equipment used in the celebration itself. Bringing such presents was not an activity open to anyone who wished to participate; instead, this type of participation was restricted in exactly the same way that bringing a sacrifice to goddess was limited. Just as with the sacrificial victims, bringing a gift created and maintained close relations between the dedicator and the goddess, while it also identified the group or individual doing so as part of ‘all the Athenians’. As we saw in discussing the procession, the peplos for Athena was brought up to the Akropolis on some sort of contraption perhaps as early as the end of the fifth century. By probably the early second century ad, this vehicle had taken on the form of a full-sized ship and, in our written descriptions, the ship, not the robe, is the focus of authors’ attention (Table 4.6). Until the addition of an annual peplos to the Little Panathenaia in the late second century bc, this gift was only presented to the goddess at the penteteric festival, when it must have been one of the main attractions in the parade and its presentation an important moment in the ceremonies on the Akropolis, one marking the intimate relationship between Athena and her people.146 The robe was also closely linked with the Athenians themselves, as Aristophanes makes clear in the Knights: the members of the chorus praise their fathers because, through their military deeds, they were

146

Compare Parker 2005: 265. With the exception of the sources discussed in Chapter 3, which cannot be projected back on to earlier periods, our other testimonia associate the robe with the penteteric festival, often quite explicitly; e.g. schol. Ar. Knights 566a (I), repeated by Suda s.v. πέπλος; schol. vet. Eur. Hec. 467 (Schwartz); Harp. s.v. πέπλος, repeated by Phot. Lex. s.v. πέπλος; cf. Plaut. Merc. 66 7 (drawing on Philemon, Emporos). That its manufacture was overseen in the 330s by the athlothetai, who held office for four years and were not involved with the annual festivities, confirms the connection with the Great Panathenaia; Arist. Ath. Pol. 60.1. The donations of equipment for the conveyance of the peplos in the Hellenistic period are all linked with the penteteric celebration (Table 4.6); Shear, Jr 1978: 36 note 89. Thus, there is no evidence to support Meyer’s contention that the robe was made and dedicated every year; Meyer 2017: 221 6.

157

158

The Great Panathenaia

men ‘worthy of this land and the peplos’.147 It was, consequently, an inspiration to the good citizen to display valour in war. Athena’s robe was decorated with the Gigantomachy already in the late fifth century, as we saw in Chapter 2. Our sources particularly focus on its colours: according to the scholia vetera on Euripides’ Hecuba, Strattis described it as ‘saffron-coloured and hyacinth-coloured’, while it is called crocus-coloured in the Hecuba.148 The scholia on the Birds emphasise the richness and the variety of the colours on the garment.149 As portrayed in these texts, the robe was a rich and colourful textile, an elaborate and expensive gift for the goddess. The design seems to have included both Zeus and also Athena’s chariot.150 The overall appearance may not have changed very much from one Great Panathenaia to the next, but, on at least one occasion, alterations were introduced: after Demetrios Poliorketes freed the city in 307, the Athenians voted that he and his father, who were also eponymous heroes and saviours of the city, should be woven into the peplos with the gods.151 The Gigantomachy, however, remained the overall subject of the decoration. Further evidence for the appearance of the peplos in the archaic period is suggested by Attic vase painting. As Vian observed, the big, multi-figure combats, which show most or all of the gods, follow the same basic pattern.152 In the centre, Zeus steps into his chariot, which is pulled to the right by the horses, while Herakles, already standing in the car, shoots his bow and Athena, placed on the far side of the horses, fights on foot. This central group is flanked on both sides by what might be considered the left and the right wings of the line of battle. On the left side are frequently 147

148

149 150

151

152

Ar. Knights 565 8. Sommerstein interprets this passage as ‘worthy of the peplos’, although he does not actually specify that the fathers of the chorus where shown on it; Sommerstein 1981: 175; contra: A. M. Bowie 1993: 58. There is no evidence that the Athenians were depicted on the robe; Mansfield 1985: 64. Stratt. fr. 73 (PCG) quoted by the schol. vet. Eur. Hec. 467 (Schwartz); Eur. Hec. 466 73; on the last passage, see above Chapter 2 note 13. Schol. Ar. Birds 827; cf. [Verg.] Ciris 31 2. Zeus: Eur. Hec. 466 73; Plut. Demetr. 12.3; schol. rec. Eur. Hec. 469 (Dindorf); chariot: Eur. Hec. 466 73; schol. Aristeid. Or. 1.404 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 342 3 Jebb 197, 8. On the complications of the passage in Hecuba, see above Chapter 2 note 13. Plut. Demetr. 10.4 6; Diod. 20.46.2. Although the honours seem to have been voted in the earlier part of 307/6, it is not clear if there was time to change the design for the peplos of 306, which presumably still needed to be approved, as it had been in the 330s; Arist. Ath. Pol. 49.3; cf. Mikalson 1998: 78 9, 81; Jacoby, FGrHist IIIb Suppl. I: 341 5. The two men were certainly included in the robe for 302, but that festival was ill omened: the peplos was suddenly torn apart by a windstorm; Plut. Demetr. 12.3; Philippides, fr. 25.5 6 (PCG); on the date, see Mikalson 1998: 99; Shear, Jr 1978: 36 note 89; contra: Wohl 1996: 50; Mansfield 1985: 56. Vian 1952: 95 101.

Gifts for the Goddess

shown Poseidon, Dionysos and Aphrodite, while on the right are often Apollo, Artemis and Hephaistos.153 This design appears suddenly in its complete form in the second quarter of the sixth century and was simplified only in the later part of that century.154 That the painters used the same overall composition suggests that they were copying a single version in some other media; since no such sculpted version seems to have existed at this time, the most likely candidate, as Vian attractively suggested, is the peplos of Athena.155 If these associations are correct, then the reorganisation of the festival in 566 saw not only the introduction of the penteteric version of the celebration and the connection with the Gigantomachy, but also the adoption of this military theme as the decoration for Athena’s peplos, a gift which itself may well not have been new at this time.156 In the middle of the sixth century, the Giants on the robe were very likely shown armed, as they were in contemporary vase painting, while the gods were probably not depicted in full panoplies. How long this design continued to be used is difficult to know. In the late fifth century, the Hecuba focuses on Zeus, Athena and the chariot, but, in describing the honours for Demetrios and Antigonos, Plutarch does mention the gods, a term which suggests that other divinities continued to be shown. The Giants, as the gods’ opponents, must have remained in the design, but it is difficult to know how they appeared and whether they ceased to be shown in armour, as was generally the case in vase painting after about 440 bc.157 Since the robe described in the pseudo-Vergilian Ciris includes trophies (tropaeis) of 153

154 155

156

157

Vian 1952: 100. The dinos by Lydos, National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 607, does not quite follow this pattern, because Hephaistos and Poseidon have been exchanged; Moore 1979: 97 9; above Chapter 2 note 16. Vian 1952: 41, 101 4. Vian 1952: 41, 125 6, 251 3; Vian 1988: 265; cf. Neils 2007: 44; contra: Mansfield 1985: 51 3; Robertson 2004a: 113, 126 7, 148 61; Robertson 2004b: 106; Neils 2012: 210; Neils 2009: 145. Contrary to Mansfield’s claims, the scholia on Aristophanes, Knights 566a (III) do not state that the Athenians first dedicated the peplos after the victories in the Persian Wars. Unlike Robertson, I am unconvinced that IG I3 7 testifies to the introduction of the peplos in the years 460 450; cf. Osborne and Rhodes 2017: 52. Lines 10 12 concern what is ν̣[όμιμα] (with Lewis; contra: Robertson) for the Praxiergidai, while lines 13 and following concern ta patria of the Praxiergidai: a newly introduced peplos is consistent with neither ta nomima nor ta patria; cf. also Parker 1996: 307. To explain the proverb ‘the work of Akeseus/Akesaios and Helikon’, Zenobios and Diogenianos connect the first peplos of Athena Polias with these two men, but they do not mention Athens; Zen. 1.56; Diogenian. 2.7; repeated by Apostol. 1.99. The veracity of this information is difficult to assess, especially since we do not know when these authors thought the first robe was made: perhaps they imagined these men as contemporaries of Erichthonios. Like Parker, I do not see that the ancient sources provide any support for Mansfield’s theory of two peploi; Mansfield 1985: 2 18, 51 65; Parker 2005: 269 note 71. Vase painting: Vian 1988: 251; Carpenter 1991: 75.

159

160

The Great Panathenaia

the Giants, it is possible that the garment continued to show the gods’ enemies in armour long after such depictions ceased to be used in other media and contexts.158 Such conservatism would find a parallel in the decoration of the prize amphorae. The peplos was certainly still being created and dedicated to the goddess in the middle of the second century ad, when Aelius Aristeides described his speech as an adornment for the celebration, like the robe, and about ad 175, when Celsus indicated in his polemic against Christianity that it was still decorated with the Gigantomachy and carried in the procession.159 Since the garment is connected with the ship-car, its later history was perhaps parallel to the history of the vehicle, which is still attested in the late fourth century ad, although without any mention of the robe (Table 4.6). Throughout its history, the martial design of the peplos linked it very closely to one of the festival’s central stories and it emphasised that the proceedings celebrated this divine victory. The robe was not the only gift with a military flavour which was given to the goddess, because the city’s colonies brought panoplies, full suits of armour, to present to her, as we saw when we discussed the procession (Table 4.5). Before 425, some of the allies were also bringing such presents, while, in 422 and perhaps also in 418 and 414, all the allies did so (Table 4.5). Panoplies are not necessarily the most obvious item which these delegations could have brought to Athena Polias, because war was not her primary focus and, in the visual sphere, she is not shown wearing a cuirass. Until about 440 bc, in the Gigantomachy, it is the Giants who are armed, not the gods, who, as divine beings, presumably did not need such protection. In the context of the Panathenaia, accordingly, the panoplies brought by the colonists and allies mapped on to the armour of the defeated Giants and emphasised the goddess’ success in fighting them. These connections would have been reinforced by the juxtaposition of the dedicatory panoplies with the armed Giants on the peplos. Since the author of the Ciris envisions the decoration of the peplos as including trophies of the Giants, as we saw earlier, the gods could at least occasionally be imagined as making trophies with their enemies’ armour after their own battles. Bringing armour to Athena, consequently, required the dedicators to participate not only as humans celebrating a divine victory, but also as individuals imitating the gods in the aftermath of the divine battle, in much the same

158 159

[Verg.] Ciris 29 34 with Lyne 1978: 114. Aristeid. Or. 1.404 (Lenz and Behr); Origen, C. Cels. 6.42. The appearance and display of the peplos were probably unchanged in the ad 240s, when Origen wrote his response to Celsus.

Gifts for the Goddess

way that the pyrrhichistai did.160 Dedicating panoplies allowed groups which were connected with Athens, but not citizens of the city, to link themselves to one of the central stories of the Panathenaia. Their actions presumably imitated those of all the gods, rather than just Athena’s, and thus their actions were not entirely parallel to those of the Athenian pyrrhichistai, who followed the model of Athena herself. In this way, the colonists and allies were able to emphasise their membership in ‘all the Athenians’, but a subtle distinction was also made between the members of the group, not all of whom were quite so intimately connected with the goddess. The Athenians further commemorated the military excellence of the goddess by dedicating to her a gold crown ‘as an aristeion’, a reward for valour and military excellence (Table 4.11). These dedications are attested epigraphically for the festivals between 402 and 370, the period immediately after the Peloponnesian War, when there are not likely to have been many delegations from other cities. If the Athenians continued to give such crowns to Athena after the festival of 370, then they are not preserved in the inventories of the goddess’ treasures. In 307/6, the people of Kolophon decided to send a crown as an aristeion to be dedicated to the goddess on behalf of them and the Athenians (Table 4.11). Evidently, the idea of giving the goddess a crown as a reward for excellence did not cease to exist in 370, as the epigraphical evidence might indicate. Other gold crowns dedicated by the city’s colonists and allies and listed in the goddess’ inventories without further description may also have been given at the Panathenaia, but the laconic nature of the records precludes certainty.161 Bringing gifts to the goddess was not limited to the Athenians, their colonists and their allies, because individuals, usually very prominent ones, are also attested as presenting presents to Athena. In some cases, the objects were items needed for the festival itself, particularly for the conveyance of the peplos. Thus, we must understand the equipment presented by Lysimachos, Ptolemy II and Miltiades, the son of Zoilos, both as needed 160 161

See above Chapter 2. The most likely candidate is the crown of the Ephesians marked with an A and described as an aristeion of Athena; IG II2 1485.8 11; 1486.5 7; D. Harris 1995: no. V.379; Lewis 1988: 307. If this association is correct, then the crown was probably presented at the Panathenaia of 306; cf. Lewis 1988: 303 4 note 27. Since the crown is specified as ‘of Athena’, I do not see how it can have been announced at the Dionysia of 307, as Lewis prefers to reconstruct the text. As the crown given by the people of Chalchedon in the sixth prytany of 354/3 demonstrates, not all crowns brought in the year of a Great Panathenaia need have been offered at Athena’s festival; IG II2 1437.16 17; 1438 + EM 12931.20 1, text as Schweigert 1938: no. 16; D. Harris 1995: no. V.435; contra: Lazzarini 2000.

161

162

The Great Panathenaia

contributions and as dedications for the goddess; Herodes Atticus’ ship-car also falls into this category (Table 4.6). P. Herennius Dexippos probably also dedicated his akr[osto]lion from the Panathenaic ship at the festival and perhaps the statue (ἕδο[ς]) of the goddess mentioned in the inscription commemorating his dedications.162 Since both Miltiades, the son of Zoilos, and Herennius Dexippos were agonothetai of the festival, it may have been common for holders of that position to dedicate an offering to the goddess in their own name, so that she (and everyone else) would forever remember their actions on her behalf.163 In contrast, some gifts were not necessary ritual equipment, but they did pick up on the festival’s major themes. The most obvious case is the 300 Persian panoplies which Alexander (and his allies) dedicated after the battle of Granikos.164 Since the battle took place in Thargelion of 334, it seems likely that the gift was made at the Great Panathenaia of 334, although our sources do not specify the occasion.165 The dedicatory inscription stated that the gift was from ‘Alexander, the son of Philip, and the Greeks except the Lakedaimonians’, that is from Alexander and the members of the League of Corinth, a body which included the Athenians. In this context, however, the focus was particularly on the king and secondarily on his allies, rather than on the Athenians. This gift reinforced the martial themes of the festival, and may have reminded those present of the panoplies dedicated by Athenian colonies and allies. The politics of dedicating at the Panathenaia are brought out by two further gifts. The first is the representations, apparently [ste]lai, of King Antigonos Gonatas’ ‘deeds done against the barbarians on behalf of the safety of the Greeks’, that is when he fought the Gauls at Lysimacheia in 277 bc.166 Despite what we might expect, the king did not dedicate these depictions himself to Athena Nike; instead, they were offered by Herakleitos of Athmonon on his behalf. This situation contrasts with the other dedications which we have discussed and requires explanation. Since the inscription is usually dated soon after the end of the Chremonidean 162 164 166

IG II2 3198 IG II3.4 1398. 163 Miltiades’ agonothesia: IG II2 968.41. Arr. Anab. 1.16.7; cf. Plut. Alex. 16.17 18. 165 So Habicht 1997: 18 19 note 23. IG II2 677.3 6 IG II3.1 1034.3 6. Although the stone is broken at the crucial point, it seems to read [στή]λ̣ας, the text now presented by IG II3.1. We may wonder exactly what these [ste]lai showed. Of Pausanias’ fifty six examples of the term στήλη, thirty one are inscriptions or tombstones; twenty two are certainly reliefs; and three are probably reliefs. With the exception of one stele showing a fight between two men (8.53.10), these reliefs are relatively simple depictions of a single figure, while the paintings (γραφή; fifty two examples) are complex images. It seems unlikely that these distinctions were unique to Pausanias or to the second century ad. Lysimacheia: Diog. Laert. 2.141; Just. Epit. 25.1.2 2.7; Will 1984: 116 17.

Gifts for the Goddess

War,167 the city was under the control of Antigonos, and we might imagine that he could do as he pleased. This situation suggests that the king was unable to make the dedications himself. Since the sacrifices in the middle of the third century were restricted to Athenians and their colonists, it seems most likely that Antigonos could not make the dedications himself because he was not an Athenian citizen at this time.168 Certainly Alexander and Ptolemy II had been granted Athenian citizenship when they made their dedications.169 Since Graham Oliver has stressed the close link between Athenian honours and the grain supply, it seems likely that the Athenians granted Lysimachos citizenship in return for his gift of 10,000 medimnoi of wheat in 299/8.170 The equipment for the conveying the peplos would then have been a further (and immediate) benefaction; indeed, how could the king better display his new citizenship than by dedicating the equipment to the goddess at the Panathenaia? Similarly, when Spartokos and Pairisades, the rulers of the Kimmerian Bosporos, and their brother Apollonios agreed to dedicate their honorary gold crowns regularly to the goddess, they did so in their capacity as Athenian citizens; indeed, their royal title was not envisioned as being used on the dedication.171 Our evidence, consequently, 167

168

169

170

171

E.g. Dinsmoor 1931: 175 6; Henry 1996: 115; Mikalson 1998: 164; Chaniotis 2005: 220; cf. G. Oliver 2007c: 169. The inscription probably belongs in 255/4 bc; see below Chapter 6 with note 67. Antigonos’ cult as a saviour guaranteed that he eventually received Athenian citizenship; I. Rhamnous 7.2 10; cf. IG II2 793.8 11, which may not be Athenian; Kralli 2003; Habicht 1996a; cf. G. Oliver 2007c: 239 40. Most probably the honours were voted after Antigonos gave the city her freedom in probably 256/5; cf. Habicht 1996a: 133. Freedom: Euseb. Chron. s.v. Olympiad 131.1 (Helm: 131), 131.2 (Schoene II: 120); Paus. 3.6.6; M. J. Osborne 2012a: 51 2; Habicht 2003: 52 3; Tracy 2003c: 58 9; Oetjen 2014: 111 18. Although the Armenian version of Eusebius’ Chronica places this event in 255/4 (Olympiad 131.2), the references in the epigraphical sources to epidoseis for the protection of the city and the countryside in 256/5 suggest that Athens became free in that year, as the Greek version of the Chronica states; SEG XXXIX 125 IG II3.1 991.19 20 (countryside); LIII 130A.2 4 IG II3.1 990.1 3 (city); LIII 130B.10 13 IG II3.1 989.10 13 (city); Oetjen 2014: 116 17. The epidosis for the protection of the city seems to have been made late in the (official) year; on these events, see also G. Oliver 2007c: 204 7. Alexander: M. J. Osborne 1981 3 III IV: 69 70; Ptolemy II: M. J. Osborne 1981 83 III IV: 94, 116. IG II2 657.9 14 IG II3.1 877.9 14. Honours and grain supply: G. Oliver 2007c: 237 with 285 90; cf. G. Oliver 2007b: 286. IG II3.1 298.20 39, 66 8. Since the athlothetai were involved with the dedication, it presumably took place at Athena’s festival. As their honorary decree makes clear, Spartokos, Pairisades and Apollonios had inherited their citizenship from their father and grandfather. Their father Leukon also seems to have received an honorary crown on a regular basis, but we do not know if he then dedicated it to Athena; IG II3.1 298.26 9; Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 322. Of course, since these crowns were honorary and awarded by the city, they were not standard dedications. For a parallel example from Konon, see IG II2 1479.18 21; on the problems of his identity, see Table 6.1 note 1.

163

164

The Great Panathenaia

points to a close connection between citizenship and dedicating at Athena’s festival. The second gift is the 3 mnai of grain (σ[ῖ]το[ν]) which the people of Erythrai seem to have been required to bring to the Great Panathenaia, apparently in the late 450s bc.172 Since the text is extremely fragmentary, and the original inscription is now lost, interpretation of this passage is not without problems.173 Although the procession is not mentioned and the grain is not described as a dedication, there are no parallels for a city bringing to the festival items not intended for the goddess.174 It seems likely, therefore, that the grain was, indeed, given to the goddess. That it does not fit in with the festival themes and other known dedications by cities may be explained by the circumstances which apparently lie behind the decree: terms imposed by the Athenians after Erythrai had left the alliance.175 Erythrai, accordingly, was still allowed to participate in the festival, but in a way which set her apart from the city’s colonies. Since Erythrai is not envisioned as bringing a cow, when the sacrificial meat was distributed, her citizens would not have received any; instead, they were given shares of grain. If this interpretation is correct, then Erythrai was allowed to take part in the festival of ‘all the Athenians’, but not on equal terms with the other members of the community, and that inequality was made very visible at the crucial moments of the procession, the sacrifices and the distribution of meat. Collectively, our evidence for the dedications made to Athena at her penteteric festival suggests that the eligibility to make such offerings was restricted in much the same ways that sacrifices were. Through the middle of the third century bc, all the known dedicators are Athenians, their colonists and their allies. When the Athenians granted citizenship to worthy benefactors of the city, they gained the right to act as Athenians at the city’s most important festival and so to make a dedication in their own name. In contrast, non-Athenians who were not colonists or allies did not have this right. At best, they might find an Athenian to act on their 172

173 174

175

IG I3 14.2 5 with Malouchou 2014: 84 5. On the date, see Rhodes 2008: 501, 504; Osborne and Rhodes 2017: 118 19; earlier discussions include: Meritt and Wade Gery 1962: 71; Meiggs and Lewis 1988: 92 3; Meiggs 1972: 421 2; Engelmann and Merkelbach 1972: 38; Parker 1996: 142 note 80; contra: Moroo 2014: 102 12. On the history of the text, see Meiggs and Lewis 1988: 91; Malouchou 2014: 73 83. If this grain is merely supplies, then the large amount is striking: Jameson calculated that it would feed 960 individuals for six days; Jameson 1972: 477 8. Even 480 people for twelve days seems too high for the theoria from Erythrai, and distribution to people not from this city does not seem to have been envisioned. Meiggs and Lewis 1988: 92 3 with further references; Meiggs 1972: 112 15 with further references; Rhodes 2014: 45; Osborne and Rhodes 2017: 118 19; contra: Moroo 2014: 105 12.

Participants and Participation

behalf, as Antigonos Gonatas did; most probably, such individuals simply did not make a dedication at this time.176 Our evidence after the middle of the third century shows the same pattern. It is possible, therefore, that the restrictions on dedications did not change in the years after 229 bc when the Athenians began inviting other cities to send delegations with sacrificial animals; such a situation would explain why these cities apparently did not bring panoplies to the goddess. If this deduction is correct, then the dedications remained a way of drawing distinctions between the now enlarged body of ‘all the Athenians’ and those groups and individuals with long-standing special connections to the goddess. These gifts presented to Athena linked closely to the main themes of the festival, so that the peplos showed the battle between the gods and the Giants, the whole reason for the celebration, while the panoplies and the crowns for valour further brought out the martial nature of the occasion. This emphasis was repeated by the dedications of individuals such as Alexander, Herakleitos and Herodes Atticus, whose gift was also a needed piece of ritual equipment. When these objects were carried in the procession and then offered to the goddess, they also displayed the piety and wealth of the dedicators. In Alexander’s case, the Persian panoplies stressed his martial prowess and implied that his enemies were, in some way, parallel to the Giants whom the goddess had defeated. Similarly, if the fathers of the chorus in Knights are worthy of the peplos, then they were in some way parallel to the gods themselves and their enemies analogous to the opponents of the gods, a dynamic which also seems to be at work with the colonists’ panoplies. In turn, these slippages set up divisions between ‘all the Athenians’, whose close associations with Athena were once again brought out, and everyone else who did not have this intimate association.

Participants and Participation As this discussion of the procession, sacrifices and dedications has brought out, our evidence repeatedly points towards the importance of participation in these different parts of the festival, its most important moments. Taking part in the proceedings was not an option open to all individuals who came to Athens for the Great Panathenaia; rather, only certain groups and individuals could expect to march in the procession and to give gifts to 176

These restrictions mirror the ways in which the Akropolis was focused on Athenians during the period between 322 and about 229; von den Hoff 2003.

165

166

The Great Panathenaia

the goddess, actions which both identified their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’ and created reciprocal relations between them and Athena. Particularly in the procession, roles were restricted so that only certain classes of individual could fill certain positions. Consequently, the organisation of these ritual activities created and then put on display a set of ideal roles to which individuals might aspire. Although the broadest outlines probably did not change too significantly over the long history of the festival, the participants, roles and restrictions were not stable and responded to changes elsewhere in the city’s life, most especially in the political sphere. As we would expect, the procession, sacrifices and dedications served to identify the worshipping community of ‘all the Athenians’. Although we might anticipate that the overall group involved was simply defined, the dynamics of the Great Panathenaia extended considerably further to mark out its various constituent parts. Thus, we find activities at the level of the whole city and also of its subgroups. The city as a whole was particularly on display at the moment of the sacrifices and dedications. The procession might be understood as the sum of the city, but here the focus is on the roles of different members. For men, they included: officials of the city; officials of the goddess; fighting for the city both on foot and in the cavalry; men bearing olive branches; and men carrying hydriai. Women’s roles were more restricted: only kanephoroi and religious personnel seem to have been included. Females from the city’s higher socio-economic classes must have dominated, while the men would have represented a larger cross section of the city,177 albeit one which was also skewed towards its more affluent and powerful members. All these individuals were citizens or the daughters of citizens. Roles were also reserved for metics, but they were more limited: male metics carried trays, while their daughters brought hydriai, as well as stools and parasols, which were apparently for the comfort of the kanephoroi.178 The wives of metics were not included at all, and the opportunities for citizens’ wives were also very limited, because few of them would have been servants of the goddess. Since Claudius Aelianus describes the metic daughters as parthenoi (maidens), they must have been the same age as the kanephoroi, and so only children who were on the cusp of adulthood were included.179 In the procession and at the sacrifices, the subgroups of the city were also represented, at least in part. Gene, demes, and tribes all seem to have sent an animal to be immolated for the goddess. 177

178

Especially in the fourth century bc, when a range of the citizens was participating in politics; C. Taylor 2007. See below Chapter 7 with note 34. 179 Above note 50.

Participants and Participation

These animals must have been accompanied by humans, almost certainly men who, therefore, had additional positions open to them. In these ways, the different inhabitants of Athens and Attica were represented, albeit unequally. The community of ‘all the Athenians’ also expanded beyond the borders of the polis to include the city’s colonists, who brought cows and panoplies for the goddess. Since they also brought dedications, the colonists were represented in the procession, the sacrifices and the giving of the gifts. In this sense, their role was parallel to that of the Athenians as a whole and different from that of the city’s subgroups which did not bring dedications. By the 420s, at least some of the allies also seem to have been participating in ways parallel to the colonies, and such activity was then mandated for all of them in 425/4. While we normally consider the roles for allies to have been limited to the later fifth century, the dedication of the Persian panoplies from the battle of Granikos in the name of both Alexander and the allies (including Athens) suggests that being an ally of the city continued to confer the right to participate in the Panathenaia after the fifth century bc. Since cities such as Priene and Kolophon stress their kinship and/or status as a colony in the later fourth century and around 200 bc, that identity was evidently considered more desirable than the position of ally, and the rights of the allies may have been more potential than actual. In the years after 229 bc, the Athenians began to allow cities which were not their colonies or allies to send delegations with sacrificial animals. The emphasis on the people of Priene’s status as ‘friend[s and kinsmen] from ancient times’, however, suggests that, in the years around 200, it remained more desirable to be a colony than to be simply a city with no special connection to Athens; very likely this distinction also played out on the Akropolis. The procession, sacrifices and dedications, consequently, created a series of ideal roles which participants might aspire to fill: for men, the good citizen active on behalf of the city both in peace and in war; the good daughter of such a citizen was a kanephoros, while her mother might remember back to her youth and her own service to the goddess in this role. The good metic and his daughter were also marked out. From an Athenian perspective, the proper actions of the good colony and the good ally were also laid out. The emphasis on cities’ roles as colonies and kinsmen suggests that these ties were important not only to Athens, but also to the participating cities. For much of the fifth and fourth centuries, such links would have been important locally for these cities, because they reminded their local enemies that Athens might intervene on their behalf in the local political and military disputes. Had there been no

167

168

The Great Panathenaia

benefits for these cities, they would not have participated in the later fourth century and around 200 bc. The decree concerning the spondophoroi also suggests that cities wished to be associated with Athens and her most important festival in the years after 229. At the same time, the presence of these cities is primarily a feature of the Great Panathenaia, and it set the penteteric festivities apart from the Little Panathenaia with its much more local focus. As summarised here, the roles and restrictions appear to be static, but, of course, they were not. Between 566 and the institution of the Kleisthenic democracy in 508/7, the great celebration must have focused on the city’s higher social and economic classes, and it must have been less inclusive than it was in the classical period. The only subgroups would have been (elite) gene, such as the Salaminioi, while metics, not yet a feature of the city’s organisation, would have been absent. After the introduction of the Kleisthenic democracy, however, the festival changed significantly, so that it was closely connected with the new political system. Now, the new divisions of the city, the tribes and demes, were prominently represented: among the city’s officials, in the city’s hoplites and cavalry, in the delegations organised by the demarchoi and as subgroups with sacrifices; perhaps even the thallophoroi were organised by tribe and by deme. Feasts which previously had been held by (elite) gene were now extended to all Athenians, organised in their new tribes. The simultaneous addition of the cult for Harmodios and Aristogeiton further emphasised the associations between the new political system and Athena’s festival, so that it became an occasion for displaying not just the city, but also the (new) isonomic system. Changes in the fifth and fourth centuries mirrored social (the positions for metics and for ephebes) and political (presence or absence of contingents from other cities) developments beyond the festival. Some alterations, such as the shift from male to female hydriaphoroi, were made for reasons which now elude us. Broader political participation in the fourth century will have played out in the festival in greater diversity among the city’s officials.180 Despite the connections between the democratic system and the tribes and demes, these subdivisions were not abolished when the city began to have oligarchic interludes after the death of Alexander. It seems likely that the democratic aspects of the festival were more pronounced with more diverse citizen participation when the city was under a popular regime, while, under an oligarchic or tyrannical regime, they were downplayed, and 180

Above note 177.

Participants and Participation

members of the city’s higher social and economic strata were more prominent. In the years after 229, the abolition of the metoikia and the invitations to cities not previously connected to Athens significantly and visibly changed the festival, so that it became more inclusive and more international, while it also displayed the extent of the city’s connections abroad. In the Roman period, the development which is now most visible is the addition of the ship-car, perhaps under Hadrian. It seems likely that it was associated with the city’s military achievements in the past and perhaps especially to her victories over the Persians.181 By this time, only the ephebes apparently represented the city’s military forces, because, under Rome, Athens did not need a fighting force. The demes and tribes were now more probably understood as the city’s traditional and particular divisions rather than as visible markers of the democratic system. In this way, they also reinforced the connections between the present and the city’s past glories, as did the peplos, still decorated with the Gigantomachy, and the Panathenaic prize amphorae, still in the black-figure style and still showing the goddess on the front.182 As this brief summary indicates, the procession, sacrifices and dedications were certainly not rigidly fixed. Almost certainly there were also many changes which are now no longer reflected in our limited evidence for these aspects of the festival. All these different roles and potential opportunities for participation bring out the complexity of the procession, sacrifices and dedications. The multiplicity and variation evident in this part of the festival, however, does not mean that the occasion was one of disunity and unconnected parts. Rather, these rituals which lay at the heart of the festival were united by the repetition of the main stories and themes of the celebration. The association between the occasion and the Gigantomachy was clearly brought out by the decoration of the peplos. The military theme inherent in the battle was further reinforced by the panoplies brought by the colonies (and the allies) and by the contingents of Athenian hoplites, cavalry and commanders in the procession. The introduction of the great ship-car in the Roman period reinforced these connections, because it is always described as a warship, not an ordinary boat. The apobatai in the procession in the fifth century bc further added to the martial nature of the event, while they also pointed to the connection between the apobatic competition and the origins of the occasion. The military theme might also be brought out by specific dedications, such as Alexander’s Granikos panoplies and the [ste]181 182

On contemporary interest in the Persian Wars, see above note 93. Peplos: [Verg.] Ciris 29 34; Origen, C. Cels. 6.42; amphorae: G. R. Edwards 1957: 322 3, 326, 329 30 nos. 12 13, 342 3 nos. 24 5.

169

170

The Great Panathenaia

lai showing the deeds of Antigonos Gonatas against the Gauls. Both the hymns sung in the procession and at the sacrifices and the prayers which accompanied the offerings would have provided further scope not only for focusing generally on the deeds of the goddess, but also for bringing out the different themes and stories which were particularly associated with this festival. This repetition across the procession, the hymns and prayers, the sacrifices and the dedications unified these events which formed the most important part of the Panathenaia, the moment when ‘all the Athenians’ renewed their reciprocal relations with the goddess. The importance both of these themes and of how individuals took part in the festivities was not limited to this part of the celebration, because these issues also played out in the games, as we shall see in the following chapter.

5

The Panathenaic Games: Entertaining the Goddess

The Great Panathenaia was distinguished from the annual celebration by the presence of international visitors, who came to worship the goddess, to enjoy the festivities and to have fun, as we saw in the previous chapter. The events included not only the procession to the Akropolis and the sacrifices to the goddess, but also an elaborate series of competitions which entertained Athena and simultaneously allowed the human participants to show off their prowess. These contests made the penteteric festival into a very different occasion from the Little Panathenaia, and they provided an important reason for visitors to come to Athens: to watch and to compete in the competitions. As we shall see, not all events were open to all participants, and some contests were restricted to Athenians who competed on behalf of their tribes. There was, consequently, a very clear division between Athenians and non-Athenians. These distinctions set the competitions at the Panathenaia apart from the games at the great Panhellenic festivals of the Olympia, the Pythia, the Nemea and the Isthmia and, more locally, from the City Dionysia with its contests for Athenians only. The complexity of the games at the Great Panathenaia is brought out by Aristotle’s description of the duties of the athlothetai: they manage not only the procession (πομπήν), but also the contest of music (τὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς μουσικῆς), the athletic competition (τὸν [γ]υμνικὸν ἀγῶνα) and the horse race (τὴν ἱπποδρομίαν), as well as producing the peplos and the (prize) amphorae.1 This same combination of events appears again in the honours voted in 239/8 bc for the athlothetai, who, among other services, took care ‘of the contests in both music and [in athletics and of the hor]se-race’.2 This order of events is not limited to these two sources. The fragments of the list of Panathenaic prizes show that this document from the 380s bc also listed the musical events, the athletic competitions and finally the hippic contests 1 2

Arist. Ath. Pol. 60.1. IG II2 784.7 10 IG II3.1 1022.7 10: τοῦ ἀγῶνος τοῦ τε μουσικοῦ καὶ [τοῦ γυμνικοῦ καὶ τῆς ἱππ]|οδρομίας.

171

172

The Panathenaic Games

in this order.3 In the first half of the second century, the lists of victors in the games were inscribed in the order of athletic competitions followed by hippic events.4 Although the musical games are not preserved in any of our lists, there would originally have been sufficient room for them on the upper portion of Agora XVIII C197 and possibly also between lines 16 and 17 in column II of IG II2 2313; since the lists of SEG XLI 115 continued up on to a now lost upper block, there would have been room here, too, at the beginning of the list for the victors in the musical events.5 All our evidence indicates, accordingly, that the order of the different sections of the games between the early fourth century and the later second century bc was the musical competitions, then the athletic contests and finally the hippic events. There is no reason to believe that this order was first introduced in the 380s, and it seems likely that it was also in use in the sixth and fifth centuries bc. Perusal of the prize list from the 380s and the victors’ lists for the period between 182 and 146 or 142 bc reveals a further complication: while the musical, athletic and hippic events were open to all participants, there also existed a further set of competitions, which were restricted to Athenians, who represented their tribes. In the prize list, these contests are divided into two groups: those for individuals and those for teams.6 In the secondcentury lists, only tribal events for individuals are listed, an issue which we shall discuss further when we consider this part of the games.7 3

4 5

6 7

SEG LIII 192. I have previously argued for a date in the 380s and connected the list with changes in the processes of collecting the oil and the first appearance of the archon’s name on the jars; Shear 2003b: 96 100. At that time, the earliest certain archon’s name was Pytheas of 380/79 bc, but now a fragment with the name of Dieitrephes, the archon of 384/3, has been found; Pytheas: Agora Excavations, Athens, P 27556: Bentz 1998: 4.005; Dieitrephes: Agora Excavations, Athens, P 35996: Camp 2015: 476; Pitt 2009 10: 3 fig. 1. A date in the 380s fits with Tracy’s identification of the cutter as the Cutter of IG II2 17, who was active between 409/8 and 386/5 bc; Tracy 2003b: 354, 362. Since it suits his argument, Papazarkadas accepts that the archon of Staatliche Museen, Berlin, 3980 must be restored as [Philokle]s of 392/1 and thus that the prize list must be dated to 391/0 bc, although there are other options for the archon in the 390s and 380s; Papazarkadas 2011: 267 9; Bentz 1998: 4.001; Shear 2003b: 96 7. As Tracy’s comments indicate, he sees no problem with a date as late as c. 380 bc for the list; Tracy 2003b: 362. IG II2 2313; 2314 + SEG XLI 114; 2316; SEG XLI 115. Layout of SEG XLI 115: Tracy and Habicht 1991: 191 2; see also the discussion in Appendix 8. On IG II2 2313, line 15 marks the end of the list of probably 202 bc; on the organisation of the text in this column, see also below note 84. SEG LIII 192.119 53 with the discussion below. IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.37 44, 68 83, 96 105; 2316.16 41, 54 68; 2317 + SEG XLI 118.1 35, 48 64; SEG XLI 115 col. I.7 26, 35 54; col. II.1 20, 34 53; col. III.1 11, 23 38. On the dates of the second century victors’ lists, see Tracy and Habicht 1991: 192 3, 217 21; for Agora XVIII C197, see below Appendix 8. Tracy’s recent claim that the Great Panathenaia of 198 was cancelled and thus the lists in IG II2 2313 must be dated earlier than this year is unpersuasive; Tracy 2015c: 719; Tracy 2015a: 20; for the cancellation of festivals generally, see Shear 2010:

The Panathenaic Games

Consequently, we need to think of the games as also including a series of events open only to Athenians who competed for their tribes, as well as for themselves. As we shall see, these events already existed in the fifth century, and they must have been a distinctive feature of Athena’s festival. That the prize list and the victors’ lists follow the same sequence suggests that they preserve the order of the different competitions;8 consequently, they will also provide the structure our discussions. The inclusion of a series of contests open only to Athenian competitors sets the Great Panathenaia apart from the Panhellenic contests. For us, it also brings out the significance of participation, an issue which we have already discussed in the previous chapter in the context of the procession and sacrifices. For the games, we need to ask exactly how different individuals competed in the games during the course of their long history. Despite the importance of these issues, previous scholarship on the competitions has concentrated on giving synopses of the overall games and on explaining the peculiarities of different contests.9 Shifting the focus away from these traditional issues and towards participation reveals a distinct division between events open to all and competitions restricted to Athenians. This separation would have been made explicit when the herald announced the victors’ names, patronymics and ethnics, the form used on all the extant victors’ lists. In contrast to the procession and sacrifices, there were no degrees of belonging in the games, and status was immediately apparent. Consequently, participation in the restricted contests served to display the (Athenian) citizen status of the competitors, and it set them apart from other individuals from other cities, who could only take part in the events open to all contestants and also watch the Athenians in the restricted events.

8 9

146 7. As Tracy’s discussion of the events in the Second Macedonian War makes clear, after the first year of the war, the theatre of action moved north of Attica, and military activities should not have prevented the Panathenaia of 198 from being held; Tracy 2015a: 15 16 with further references. Furthermore, Knoepfler’s demonstration that the archon Charikles belongs in 200/ 199, and not in 184/3, shows that the city was not as beleaguered as Tracy has supposed; Knoepfler 2015a: 272 83; Tracy 2015a: 13, 24. The honorary decree for Kephisodoros further indicates that, on 13 Elaphebolion 199, the Athenians anticipated celebrating the Panathenaia of 198, because they included a gold crown announced at the athletic games of the goddess’ festival among Kephisodoros’ highest honours; IG II3.1 1292.1 4, 47 50. There is no reason to doubt that the celebration with its games was held as expected. Tracy 1991: 142 3, 146 7; Tracy and Habicht 1991: 201; Neils 1992a: 15. Synopses: e.g. A. Mommsen 1898: 61 106; Ziehen 1949: 474 86; Kyle 1987: 33 9, 178 94; Tracy 1991: 135 47; Tracy and Habicht 1991: 196 204; Kyle 1992: 82 101 with Shapiro 1992: 57 69, 72 5. Specific studies: e.g. Schultz 2007; Bentz 2007; Ceccarelli 2004: 93 9.

173

174

The Panathenaic Games

The games picked up as well on some of the festival’s stories and themes, which we have already discussed. As we shall see, the Panathenaia’s military aspect was particularly visible in the competitions, and it served to set the events of Athena’s festival apart from the Panhellenic games. With the exception of the race in armour, only Athenian participants could take part in these martially flavoured contests. Two of the competitions, the pyrrhiche and the apobatic race, also tied directly into some of the celebration’s most important stories, and they provided opportunities for the human participants to imitate the goddess, as we noted in Chapter 2. Consequently, taking part in these two events emphasised the close connections between the goddess and the Athenians.

The Musical Competitions Both Aristotle’s description of the duties of the athlothetai and the inscription of 239/8 recording honours for the athlothetai indicate that a contest of music, an ἀγὼν τῆς μουσικῆς, started off the overall programme of the games at the Panathenaia. In this context, mousike included not only events for musical instruments and singers, as the term ‘music’ would be understood in a modern context, but also other competitions which fell under the general oversight of the Muses, such as heraldry, drama and panegyric speeches. Our evidence for these contests falls into three periods: the archaic period, the period between 446 and the early second century bc and the later Hellenistic and Roman periods (Tables 5.1–2). The prize list shows that the singers to the aulos or double pipes (auloidoi) and the players of the kithara or box-lyre (kitharistai) competed in more than just the men’s class; a second class also existed for boys.10 In contrast, the players of the aulos (auletai) and the singers to the kithara (kitharoidoi) only had one class.11 As we shall see, the musical contests were open to all participants with the requisite talent, but they also seem to have been subject to a certain amount of instability, particularly in terms of the prizes awarded to the victors. The history of the musical contests before the middle of the fifth century bc is subject to a certain amount of confusion, because Plutarch states firmly that the musical games were first introduced to the festival by Perikles, but other sources speak of rhapsodes at the time of Hipparchos, 10 11

SEG LIII 192.14, 17; Shear 2003b: 91 note 14 with further references. SEG LIII 192.6, 22.

The Musical Competitions

i.e. in the later sixth century.12 The scholia on Pindar’s Pythian 12 report that Midas, the honorand of the song, was said to have won at the Panathenaia, as well as at the 24th and 25th Pythia in 494/3 and 490/89 respectively, when he competed as an auletes.13 The phrasing suggests that the scholiasts were not quite certain whether he did, in fact, win at Athena’s games. This meagre evidence for the contests for auloi and the kithara may be filled out by depictions on pseudo-Panathenaic amphorae which, by their shape, are connected with the celebration (Table 5.1).14 In the period 550–540 bc, these vases already depict contests for auloidoi, auletai and kitharistai, and should reflect the parallel contests in the games. A pot of about 530 bc shows a boy kitharistes; this image suggests that the small beardless auloidoi on two amphorae of about 540 bc are also likely to represent boy competitors rather than adults.15 By the period 500–480 bc, a boy auloidos is certainly shown on another jar, as is the earliest depiction of a kitharoidos. Thus, by the end of the archaic period, we have evidence for all six contests involving the aulos and the kithara which appear on the prize list.16 Since a jar of about 540 bc shows a small, beardless male auletes, it is possible that there was also a division in this event for boys, as well as one for men, as there was in the 380s. Two further pseudo-Panathenaic amphorae show rhapsodes, reciters of epic, especially Homeric epic, without musical accompaniment (Table 5.1). These depictions fit with the evidence of the pseudo-Platonic dialogue Hipparchos: Sokrates claims that Hipparchos first brought the Homeric epics to Athens and compelled the rhapsodes at the Panathenaia to recite the songs in order, just as they did in his own day.17 The requirement that the bards perform the text according to a set order prevented several bards from presenting the same episode and gave coherence to the overall contest, which would have increased spectators’ enjoyment. The competitors were probably not required to perform a memorised text which was checked line for line against an original version, but the specifications do mandate a fixed order for the episodes, a requirement which does suggest

12

13 14

15

16

Plut. Per. 13.11; rhapsodes: [Pl.] Hipparch. 228b4 c3; Ael. VH 8.2; cf. Lykourg. Leok. 102; Diog. Laert. 1.57. Schol. Pind. Pyth. 12, inscr. I omit here IG I3 666 and 754, which, despite the absence of any reference to the Panathenaia, have been connected with Athena’s festival; Kotsidu 1991: 75 80; Raubitschek 1949: 91, 93; cf. Davison 1958: 40. Contrast a third amphora, which certainly shows a bearded auloidos, who must have been competing in the men’s division (Table 5.1). SEG LIII 192.6 30; cf. Table 5.2. 17 [Pl.] Hipparch. 228b4 c3; cf. Ael. VH 8.2.

175

176

The Panathenaic Games

the existence of some type of a fixed text.18 In contrast to the author of the Hipparchos, Lykourgos attributes to the fathers of the Athenians a law mandating that only Homeric epic should be recited at the Great Panathenaia.19 For Diogenes Laertius, the innovation of reciting the epics in order was Solon’s invention; although he does not mention the Panathenaia, he may well have been thinking of the festival.20 Collectively, this evidence indicates that the rhapsodic contest existed before Hipparchos’ intervention in it.21 Since Hipparchos seems to have been born sometime after 570 bc and Peisistratos was credited with collecting and/or organising Homeric epic, it seems likely that Hipparchos’ activities occurred at some point in the 530s and before Peisistratos’ death in 528/7 bc.22 The two amphorae, which date to about 540 and about 520 bc, must belong on either side of Hipparchos’ activity (Table 5.1). The earlier jar further confirms that this contest existed before Hipparchos changed its rules. Collectively, our evidence indicates that the musical competitions were flourishing in the late archaic period, when all events, although not all classes, are depicted on contemporary pseudo-Panathenaic amphorae (Table 5.1). After 480, however, there is no further evidence for these contests until Plutarch’s statement that Perikles ‘then for the first time brought a decree (τότε πρῶτον ἐψηφίσατο) to conduct the musical competition (μουσικῆς ἀγῶνα) at the Panathenaia and, having himself been elected as athlothetes, he arranged in what way the contestants ought to play the aulos or to sing or to play the kithara’.23 Plutarch appears to have known this authorising decree, which must have instituted at least four contests: two for auletai and kitharistai and two for auloidoi and kitharoidoi, players and singers respectively. The scholia on Aristophanes’ Clouds report that the kitharoidos Phrynis first won at the Panathenaia in the 18

19 20

21 22

23

Compare Cook 1995: 3 4; G. Nagy 1996: 99 106, 108 11; G. Nagy 2002: 44 5, but see also 15 16. Lykourg. Leok. 102. Diog. Laert. 1.57; both Shapiro and Nagy assume a Panathenaic context; Shapiro 1993b: 93; G. Nagy 2002: 13 15; cf. Davison 1958: 38. West 1992: 19; Davison 1958: 38 9; Shapiro 1993b: 101 3; cf. G. Nagy 2002: 13. Hippias, who was the elder of the two brothers, cannot have been born after 570 bc, and his birth year probably belongs in the middle or later years of the decade, while Hipparchos was probably close to him in age. If he was born c. 565 bc, he would have been twenty five years old in c. 540 and thirty in c. 535 bc; consequently, the changes in the rhapsodic contest probably belong in the 530s. For the chronology, see Davies 1971: 445 8. Peisistratos and epic: Cic. De or. 3.34; Paus. 7.26.13; Ael. VH 13.14; Shapiro 1993b: 106 note 43; cf. G. Nagy 1996: 99 100. West places Hipparchos’ activity slightly later in c. 525; West 1992: 19, 340. Above note 12; on the law, cf. Plut. Mor. 1134a.

The Musical Competitions

archonship of Kallis in 446/5 bc.24 Since his teacher was active at the time of the Persian Wars, Phrynis’ career belongs in the middle of the fifth century, hence the correction of the archon’s name.25 Our combined evidence, accordingly, indicates that the musical competitions were reestablished at the Great Panathenaia in 446 bc after they had been dropped from the overall programme at some point soon after 480 bc.26 Over the course of the rest of the fifth century, competitions for both kitharoidoi and men’s kitharistai are attested and, in the early fourth century, Plato could imagine the rhapsodic contests taking place during Sokrates’ lifetime and the Peloponnesian War (Table 5.2). In the 380s, the prize list attests to competitions for kitharoidoi, auletai, men’s kitharistai and men’s auloidoi; the first two events were held only for one class, while the specifications for the second two events require separate classes for boys.27 The prize list included one further competition, which should be restored as the synauletai, a rarely attested contest of at least two musicians playing auloi together, which Pollux reports was once included in the Panathenaia.28 The rhapsodic contests also certainly continued at this time, and they, too, were included in the prize list. Probably in this form, 24 25

26

27

28

Schol. vet. Ar. Clouds 971a quoted by Suda s.v. Φρῦνις. From Kallias of 406/5 bc to Kallimachos of 446/5 bc; archon’s names are quite susceptible to corruption; Davison 1958: 40 1; Jacoby, FGrHist IIIb Suppl. I, p. 655; Shear, Jr 2016: 213 14. Phrynis’ teacher Aristokleitos: schol. vet. Ar. Clouds 971a; Istros FGrHist 334 F56; both quoted by Suda s.v. Φρῦνις. I remain unconvinced by Hose’s and Miller’s placement of the victory in 406; Hose 1993: 4 9; M. C. Miller 1997: 222; see also the comments of Shear, Jr 2016: 214 note 74. Davison 1958: 40 1; cf. P. Wilson 2000: 36; Shear, Jr 2016: 211 14. By marshalling vase paintings unconnected with the Panathenaia, various scholars have unsuccessfully sought to demonstrate that there was no break in these contests; e.g. Shapiro 1992: 57 61; Schafter 1991; Kotsidu 1991: 104 29; Vos 1986; Bundrick 2005: 171 2. West believes that only the rhapsodic competition continued from the sixth century; West 2010: 4. For the purposes of her own argument, Rotstein has denied that these boys’ competitions existed at the Panathenaia, but she does not explain why some contests were specified as men’s events; an explanation is required! She also neglects to notice that the Amphiaraia, which on her argument was modelled on the Panathenaia, included separate boys’ classes for these two events; I.Oropos 520.3 4 and cf. 4 6; Rotstein 2012: 104, 110. The spacing of the prize list, which I have discussed extensively elsewhere, makes it impossible to restore these boys’ events before line 4, as Rotstein fails to notice; Shear 2003b: 90 6; Rotstein 2012: 104 note 22. Poll. Onom. 4.83; cf. Ath. 14.618a; Shear 2003b: 93. There is no ancient evidence that there was ever a contest in parody of epic at the Panathenaia, and no such contest should be restored on SEG LIII 192; contra: Kotsidu 1991: 45, 57; Rotstein 2012: 104 5, 109. The episode narrated at Athenaeus 9.407a b cannot possibly have taken place at the Panathenaia, because it is co ordinated with the disaster in Sicily and must, therefore, belong after the eclipse of the moon on 27 August 413, a year of the Little Panathenaia; Thuc. 7.50.4; Hornblower 2008: 642. That this story does not match Thucydides’ description of how the Athenians learned of the disaster in Sicily does not inspire trust in its information; Thuc. 8.1.1. Importing unattested events into the Panathenaia from other festivals will not help us to understand Athena’s

177

178

The Panathenaic Games

the musical competitions continued in the 330s, when they were mentioned by Aristotle, and in the late 240s, when they appeared in the honours for the athlothetai.29 Some of the contests which we have been discussing continue to appear sporadically in Hellenistic and Roman periods (Table 5.2). The programme, however, did not remain stable during the second and first centuries bc, when our evidence indicates that it expanded to include new contests. The earliest of them are the theatrical competitions (σκηνικοὺς ἀγῶνας), which first appear at the end of the list of victors for 162 bc in a context which is not altogether clear (Table 5.2).30 That the crown for the Athenians on Delos was announced in the theatre in either 166 or 162 indicates that some event, most probably theatrical contests, was going on there at this time.31 Competitions for drama continued to be held in the first century ad and perhaps even later. In the first century, they certainly included one contest in new tragedies, a specification which suggests that old tragedies from the fifth century bc may also have been staged at this time. Additional events were also added to the programme: by the first century bc, a contest for heralds and, before ad 15, a competition for the enkomion or panegyric speech (Table 5.2). Various events in the musical games continued to be held in the second and third centuries ad, when a number of victors is attested (Table 5.2). As this discussion has made clear, the musical competitions were not particularly fixed over the period between about 550 bc and the middle of the third century ad when they are attested in one form or other (Tables 5.1–2). The clearest evidence for this lack of stability comes from the years between about 480 and 446, when no musical contests seem to have been held at all. Their reintroduction in 446 marked a major change in the overall programme of the festival and opened up new opportunities for additional competitors to take part in the games. The roster of events did not remain unchanged: the synaulia is only very briefly attested, and it may not have remained on the programme for many years after the prize list was

29

30

31

festivities, while restoring musical competitions in the same way at all celebrations will not allow us to understand their particular local politics. Above notes 1 and 2. I am unclear why West thinks that the contest for rhapsodes was probably dropped soon after 330 bc; West 2010: 5. Competitions for rhapsodes were certainly held at a variety of festivals in the Hellenistic period, as the evidence which he has collected indicates; West 2010: 7 10. On the circumstances, see the discussion of Tracy and Habicht 1991: 203 4; cf. Valavanis 2007a: 127 8. I am much less confident than Tsouklidou that the white ground Panathenaic Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 6103, which dates to c. 160 140 bc, was a prize for dramatic competitions; Tsouklidou 2003. I.Delos 1498.8 14; above Chapter 4 note 74.

The Musical Competitions

inscribed. A further period of expansion is visible in the second and first centuries bc, when additional events begin to appear (Table 5.2). In the Roman period, these competitions are better attested than the more traditional events, but the victory of the auletes L. Cornelius Korinthos in the middle of the second century ad indicates that at least some of the latter continued to be held. The malleable nature of the programme also appears in the prizes. In the 380s bc, the prize list prescribes gold crowns for the victors and money awards for (some) lower-place finishers; the victorious men’s kitharistes and kitharoidos also received cash prizes. The extent to which other finishers were rewarded varied from event to event, as did the amount of the crowns and the cash awards. These prizes fit with Aristotle’s description of the situation in the 330s, when the victorious musicians were also given gold (crowns) and silver (money awards).32 The evidence of the inventories of Athena shows that gold crowns were already being awarded to victorious musicians in 402 bc, when there was a tie for first place in the competition for kitharoidoi, and so the crown was dedicated to Athena (Table 5.2). Strikingly, this crown weighed considerably less, 85 drachmai and 2 obols, than the crown for the victorious kitharoidos in the prize list, which was specified as 1,000 drachmai.33 The Athenians, however, did not always reward victorious musicians in this way: in some periods, the prizes were jars of olive oil, like those given to the victors in the athletic and hippic contests. One such vessel is attested from the decade of 430–420 bc, during the early years of the Peloponnesian War, but a second is also now known from the years around 350 bc.34 The prizes in the fourth century were evidently rather less fixed than we might have imagined. By the end of the first half of the third century bc, the prizes had changed yet again: now victors were rewarded with jars of oil, but the vessels were not decorated in the traditional black-figure, like those awarded for successes in the athletic and hippic competitions; instead, they were white-ground, with the traditional designs painted on this white background.35 Such awards certainly 32 34

35

Arist. Ath. Pol. 60.3. 33 SEG XXIII 82.30 1; LIII 192.6 8. c. 430 420 bc: Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, 17794: Bentz 1998: 5.179, pl. 81; c. 350 bc: Archaeological Museum, Cyrene, no inventory number: Luni 2003: 109, 112, figs. 17 18. Although Luni dates this amphora to c. 350 330 bc, the jar must date close to 350 bc, because the Athena faces right, but her left arm, which holds her shield, is not visible, a design only used c. 350 bc. On later examples, Athena’s left arm is partially visible; see e.g. National Museum, Athens, 20045 and 20046 (360/59 bc): Bentz 1998: 4.051, 4.052, pls. 110, 113; compare e.g. Bibliothèque nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, Paris, 246 (344/3 bc): Bentz 1998: 4.074, pl. 116. Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 702: Eschbach 2017: 58, 242 3 no. 3.007; cf. Iscr. Cos EV 234.9 10 IG XII.4 521.9 10.

179

180

The Panathenaic Games

continued to be made throughout the Hellenistic period until at least the first half of the first century bc.36 What sort of prizes were awarded during the Roman imperial period is, at present, unclear from our evidence; since so much variety is evident in the earlier periods, the prizes may no longer have been oil in white-ground Panathenaic amphorae. In contrast to these repeated changes in the events held and the prizes awarded, the possibilities for participation were much more fixed. In all periods, these competitions were open to all individuals who possessed the necessary musical talent. In the archaic period and between 446 and about 380, boys and men certainly competed in separate divisions in playing the kithara and singing to the aulos. When there was only a single class of contestants, all individuals must have competed together, irrespective of age. In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the absence of evidence for boy musicians at the Panathenaia may reflect contemporary changes in the musical world: the Boiotian musical competitions in the Hellenistic period and the Amphiaraia in the first century bc did not normally include events for boys.37 In all periods, these contests will have provided opportunities for participation for individuals whose talents were not in athletics or in horse-raising and racing.

The Athletic Games In both Aristotle’s description of the duties of the athlothetai and the honours voted for them in 239/8 bc, the musical games are followed by the athletic competitions (τὸν [γ]υμνικὸν ἀγῶνα). They consisted of various foot races, the pentathlon, wrestling, boxing and the pankration, events which today would mostly be described as track and field events. As the epigraphical evidence demonstrates, participants competed in one of three classes: boys (παῖδες), beardless youths (ἀγένειοι) and men (ἄνδρες). In both the prize list and the lists of second-century victors, the order of the classes and events is relatively fixed: boys appear first, then beardless youths and finally men. For each class, foot races are followed by the pentathlon,

36

37

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 16500 + A 16501: Tsouklidou 2007: 109 13, figs. 1 8 (date: 100 50 bc); cf. Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 343: Eschbach 2017: 261 no. 1.002 (date: 98/7 bc). For other such jars, see Chapter 1 note 151. Boiotia: Manieri 2009: 50 1 table 6 with 41 table 1; the exception is the Homoloia at Orchomenos in the first century bc. Amphiaraia: I.Oropos 521.4 19; 523.3 32; 524; 526; 528.5 16. In contrast, in 329/8, the Amphiaraia did include events for boys; I.Oropos 520.3 6.

The Athletic Games

wrestling, boxing and the pankration;38 the men’s programme was rounded off by the hoplites or race in armour. As we shall see, the athletic programme seems to have been subject to considerably less variation over time than the musical events and, once established, it seems to have remained relatively fixed. While the three different classes of competitors are clearly attested, our evidence does not indicate the ages of the three different groups; presumably boys were the youngest and men were the oldest participants. In contrast to the Panathenaia, some other festivals, such as the Olympia and the Pythia, had only two classes, boys and men.39 At Athens, beardless youths competed not only at the Panathenaia, as we know from the prize list, but also in the contests attested by the prize list IG I3 1386 from perhaps the third quarter of the fifth century bc and in games at Marathon in the 470s bc.40 None of our sources, however, provides us with the absolute ages of the different classes, but Photios reports that boys competed at an older age than ‘Isthmian boys’ (παῖδες Ἰσθμικοί), that is the class of boys at the Isthmia, a designation which appears in the Hellenistic period.41 Drawing on the evidence for the Asklepieia at Kos, Theophil Klee argued that ‘Pythian boys’ were aged twelve to fourteen, ‘Isthmian boys’ fourteen to seventeen and beardless youths seventeen to twenty.42 According to Photios’ statement, the boys’ class at the Panathenaia must have included boys who were at least aged seventeen. Since the categories of ephebes and beardless youths map closely on to one another at the Panathenaia, it seems likely that the age division between boys and beardless youths was eighteen, not seventeen, the age when young Athenian males also registered in their demes for citizenship.43 Consequently, at Athena’s festival, boys were 38

39 40

41

42 43

The boys’ races were in order the dolichos, stadion and diaulos; the youths ran only the stadion; and the men’s races were the dolichos, stadion, diaulos and hippios; Tracy and Habicht 1991: 197. The absence of this order on IG I3 1386 suggests that this fragment has nothing to do with the Panathenaia. The prizes on this inscription also do not fit with the evidence of the fifth century epigram for Nikolaidas of Corinth which states that he won 60 amphorae of oil; [Simon.] 43 (Page, FGE: 262 4) fr. 155 Bergk, lines 3 4. Johnston asks rhetorically what other festival is possible: the inscription’s findspot on Salamis suggests the Eleusinia, which had athletic, hippic and musical competitions in the 320s bc; IG II2 1672.258 61 I.Eleusis 177.387 90; Johnston 2007: 103. Golden 1998: 104 5. SEG LIII 192.53 67; IG I3 1386.3, 9, 15; Pind. Ol. 9.88 94. Since Epharmostos won the men’s wrestling at Olympia in 468 bc, his victory in the youths’ wrestling at Marathon while still a boy must belong in the 470s; P.Oxy. 222 with Janell 1927. Phot. Lex. s.v. Παναθήναια; repeated (with corruption) by Suda s.v. Παναθήναια and schol. Pl. Prm. 127a. On various classes of boys, see helpfully Golden 1998: 104 6; Kennell 1999: 251 2. Klee 1918: 46 8. For the Koan victors’ lists, see IG XII.4 453 4. Registering for citizenship: Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.1; on the complications, see Rhodes 1981: 497 8.

181

182

The Panathenaic Games

probably aged twelve to eighteen, beardless youths between eighteen and twenty and men over twenty.44 Since the athletic games only occurred at the penteteric festival, most boys probably only had one opportunity to compete in the classes of boys and beardless youths, while individuals could easily have competed in the adults’ division at more than one celebration. Although the athletic games clearly included three different classes for much of their history, they did not do so in 566, as we shall see, and the youths’ division seems to have been added later, but before the end of the archaic period. Since the events for men were the fullest part of the athletic programme and they are most extensively attested, they must form the starting point of our discussion. While, in our literary and epigraphical sources, only the stadion, the single-length foot race, the diaulos, the double-length foot race, and the hoplites are attested in the late sixth century, wrestling, boxing and the pankration, the all-in contest combining wrestling and boxing, are all known by about 450 bc (Table 5.3). The earliest pentathlon victory also belongs sometime in the fifth century. The prize vases, in contrast, present a rather different picture of the games in the sixth century. Depictions of the sprint and the pentathlon appear already in the period about 560–550 bc, and the hoplites is first shown about 550–540 bc (Table 5.4).45 Wrestling appears about 540 and boxing about 530 bc; by about 520, the distance race or dolichos was shown, as, by about 500 bc, was the pankration. Thus, by the end of the sixth century, all the main events of the men’s programme are attested. Some of the very earliest depictions of the sprint specify that the event is the stadion or the diaulos, both of which must have been contested by about 550 bc. All these events continued to be shown on prize vases of the fifth century and, on the basis of the combined written and painted testimonia, we can be confident about the men’s events once included on the prize list.46 The amphorae show that all these events continued to be on the programme until the late fourth century bc (Table 5.4). The third century is poorly attested in all our evidence, but the situation improves in the second century because of the extant lists of 44

45

46

For other suggestions, see Golden 1998: 105 6; Tracy and Habicht 1991: 196 note 31; Bugh 1990: 23 4, 26 37 (Theseia); Kennell 1999: 251 4 (Theseia); Themelis 2009: 73. Frisch thought that the size of the individuals was a factor in determining in which class they competed; Frisch 1988. The different sprint races cannot normally be distinguished on the prize amphorae. A dedication from the Athenian Akropolis may record a pentathlon victory at the Panathenaia c. 550 bc, but the occasion of the success is not specified; IG I3 597; Kyle 1987: 196 no. A6, 205 6 no. A38; Moretti 1953: 8 10, no. 4. SEG LIII 192.68 91; cf. Shear 2003b: 92.

The Athletic Games

victors (Tables 5.3–4). They demonstrate that, by 182 bc, a new foot race, the hippios, the four-length race, had been added to the programme (Table 5.3). The latest of the prize amphorae for the sprint, the pentathlon and wrestling, may date as late as the 120s bc (Table 5.4). In the Roman period, victories are attested in all events except the diaulos and the hippios, while the hoplites is mentioned in Hadrian’s letter regulating the programme of major games (Table 5.3).47 The latest of these successes dates to after ad 229 and was won in the pentathlon. It seems likely that the men’s programme remained quite extensive in this period. In contrast to the men’s events, the contests for boys are rather less well attested (Tables 5.5–6). In the archaic period, Panathenaic amphorae show the boys’ sprint, wrestling and pentathlon (Table 5.6). Further evidence, however, is provided by the early amphorae for the men’s sprint (Table 5.4). Between about 560 and about 530 bc, four vases are explicitly labelled as for the men’s stadion. That not only the event, but also the class is specified suggests that there was another stadion contest for another group of individuals. The boys’ sprint certainly existed by about 530–520 bc, a period which overlaps with the latest of the jars with the label ‘men’s stadion’ (Tables 5.6 and 5.4). It seems most likely, therefore, that the second class competing in the stadion was boys and that this event was on the programme as early as about 560 bc. In the fifth century, we know of victors in boys’ wrestling and the pankration, while the prize vases show all the events except the pankration (Tables 5.5–6; Fig. 1.6). Since the boys’ events are not very well attested, the prize list provides important evidence for their competitions. It shows that boys were not racing in either the diaulos or the hippios and that they were continuing to compete in the pentathlon. By the end of the fourth century, however, the programme had been expanded to include the hippios (Table 5.5). By the well-attested period of the second-century victors’ lists, further changes are evident: the diaulos has reappeared, but both the hippios and the pentathlon are no longer included (Table 5.5).48 The hippios was subsequently added back 47

48

A nameless sprinter won at least once at the Panathenaia in the period after ad 138, but the event in which he competed (stadion or diaulos) is not certain; I.Ephesos 1613.7 8. The wrestler T. Aelius Aurelius Maron also won at the Panathenaia at some point in the period between ad 147 and 180, but, since he reports that he won boys’, youths’ and men’s contests, we cannot be sure in what class he was victorious at the Panathenaia; SEG XLI 1407a.11 12; 1407b.5 6, 11 12. In view of the regularity of the programme for the athletic games at this time, we can restore some of the missing text in column I of IG II2 2313 above line 3. The beginning of line 3, which projects very far to the right, should be restored as: [διαυλον? ]Σ[.3. .]Λ[. . .6. . .]τ̣ου Β̣οιώτιος; for such an arrangement, see SEG XLI 115 col. I.9, 12, 17, 23, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33. Two pairs of event + victor’s name will occupy the lines 1 4 above line 3. Lines 5 6 above line 3 will be the heading at

183

184

The Panathenaic Games

on to the programme, because a victor in it is attested about 50 bc (Table 5.5). Victories in wrestling and the pankration show that some of the boys’ event continued to be held during the reign of Augustus and in the early second century ad. It seems likely that the programme at this time included at least some foot races. The earliest evidence for the contests for beardless youths comes from the prize amphorae (Table 5.7). A jar of about 520 bc shows the sprint, while boxing appears in the period of about 510–500 and the pentathlon between about 500 and 480. In contrast to the boys’ stadion, the youths’ stadion does not seem to have been on the programme at an early date, because several prizes for the men’s sprint dating between about 560 and about 520 show both bearded men and beardless athletes or youths with the very beginning of a beard (Fig. 1.2).49 Since being able to distinguish the class is critical to the point of the amphorae, as the depiction needed to match the event, our evidence should indicate that the youths’ sprint was added about 520 bc, perhaps even for the games of 518. Similarly, two vessels for the men’s pentathlon show both bearded and beardless contestants and are dated to about 520 and to about 510–500 bc.50 This evidence suggests that a separate event for the youths’ pentathlon was only added at the end of the sixth century. the beginning of the list, which probably dates to either 206 or 202 bc, while the preserved line 1 will be the final line of the preceding list, which probably dates to either 210 or 206 bc. The overall column will appear as follows: 1

ίδος φυ]λῆς ] ]

[ [ [ [παῖδας δόλιχον?] [

] [στάδιον?]

3 5

49

50

[ ] [διαυλον? ]Σ[.3. .]Λ[. . .6. . .]τ̣ου Β̣οιώτιος [πά]λην [ τ]ου Συ[.2.]ανό[ς] πυγ̣[μ]ήν [ ]ς Ἡρογ̣ε[ίτο]νος Ζμυρνα[ῖ]ος

These restorations are consistent with the disposition of the majuscule text printed by Koehler in IG II 967. The relationship of these boys’ events to lines 8 15 in column II is unclear, hence the uncertainties of the dates. c. 560 bc: Martin Luther Universität, Halle, 560: Bentz 1998: 6.002, pl. 3; c. 530 520 bc: National Museum, Copenhagen, Chr. VIII 797 (99): Bentz 1998: 6.055 pl. 14; c. 520 bc: Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek, Munich, 1453: Bentz 1998: 6.061, pl. 18; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 14.130.12: Bentz 1998: 6.064, pl. 20; Museo Archeologico Regionale, Syracuse, 43458: Bentz 1998: 6.163. c. 520 bc: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden, PC 8: Bentz 1998: 6.060, pl. 18; c. 510 500 bc: Musei Vaticani, Rome, 374: Bentz 1998: 6.089, pl. 31.

The Open Hippic Competitions

Since the earliest known prize amphora for youths’ boxing also belongs to this period, this event was probably also new at this time. Wrestling and the pankration may also have been put on the programme at the end of the century. Certainly, youths’ wrestling appears on prize amphorae in the fifth century (Table 5.7) and all five events for youths appear both on the prize list in the 380s and in the second-century victors’ lists (Table 5.8). Youths’ competitions continued to be contested in the Roman period, when both the pentathlon and wrestling are attested (Table 5.8). Since the athletic games were open to all (male) individuals who possessed sufficient talent, they provided a significant number of opportunities for participation, and those who won received rich rewards, as the prize list makes clear. Initially, the programme seems to have consisted of events for only two classes, men and boys. Since some of the early prize vases show both beardless youths and men in the same competition, the men’s division must have started at an earlier absolute age, presumably eighteen years; the boys’ class probably ended at more or less the same age which it did in later periods. In this system, youths will have had little opportunity to win the men’s events, which must have been dominated by more mature older males, exactly as the Euphiletos Painter depicted it on the prize vase in New York which shows the men’s sprint (Fig. 1.2).51 The decision to include a third age group, the beardless youths, will have had a significant impact on participation: not only were more events available, but now the youths had a real chance of winning them. Presumably the possibility of victory acted as an incentive to compete, and the new contests may have been introduced in order to increase participation. Nevertheless, in all periods, more competitions were open to men than to the other age groups and, at least in the early fourth century, their prizes were also more extensive, a situation very likely not limited to the 380s bc.

The Open Hippic Competitions The third competition included among the duties of the athlothetai is the horse race (τὴν ἱπποδρομίαν);52 although this description sounds like a single event, it was, in fact, a series of races. These contests were divided into two parts: one set of competitions was open to all contenders and was parallel to the athletic games, while a second set was limited to citizens of the city, as we shall discuss in the following section. As in the athletic 51

Above note 49.

52

Above notes 1 and 2.

185

186

The Panathenaic Games

contests, the hippic events involved more than one class: in addition to events for adult horses (ἀδηφάγοι or τέλειοι), there were also races for colts (πῶλοι).53 For both divisions, there were races on horseback and several different chariot events. Although the programme for the open hippic contests were certainly fixed in the first half of the second century, there was rather more variation in the period down to at least about 380 bc. Competitions for specially bred racehorses (κέλης) are certainly attested on Panathenaic amphorae as early as about 530–520 bc (Table 5.10), but the images do not give any indications of the class, colts or adults, of the animals. The earliest written reference to the horse race at Athena’s games may be a dedication of perhaps about 550 bc, but the text does not specify the occasion on which the victory was won; the connection with the Panathenaia is suggested by its discovery on the Athenian Akropolis.54 If this association is correct, it would indicate that this race was on the festival’s programme at a very early date. A series of prize amphorae show that it continued to be contested during the period between about 530 and at least 450 bc, and it is attested during most of the fourth century (Table 5.10). The race also appears in the first half of the fourth century on an Athenian funeral monument which records chariot victories at a number of festivals, as well as one success in the horse race at the Panathenaia (Table 5.9). The absence of any indication of the class of the racehorse suggests that only adult animals competed in this event at this time. It confirms the suggestion that, in the prize list, there was only one horse race.55 The horse race then reappears in (probably) 202 and 198 bc, and it is well attested in the period between 182 and 150 or 146 bc (Table 5.9). In the victors’ lists for (probably) 202 and 198, the event is specifically described as for adult racehorses (κέλητι τελείωι).56 That the class is specified suggests that, by this time, there was a separate race for colts, as there certainly was for the period between 182 and 150 or 146 bc (Table 5.9). Prize amphorae are attested in the first half of the third century and over the course of the second century bc (Table 5.10); as on the earlier jars, we cannot determine for what class of animal they were awarded. In addition to the events for racehorses, our epigraphical evidence shows that there were events for three different types of vehicle: the four-horse 53

54

In agonistic contexts, the terms ἀδηφάγοι and τέλειοι both mean ‘full grown’ or ‘adult’ and are particularly applied to horses; Harp., Suda, Synagoge (Cunningham, MS B), Phot. Lex. s.v. ἀδηφάγους τριήρεις; Hsch., Phot. Lex. s.v. ἀδηφάγοι; Synagoge (Cunningham, MS B), Phot. Lex. s.v. ἀδηφάγον ἅρμα; see also Whitehead 2002: 175 81. According to Photios, Lexikon s.v. ἀδηφάγοι, the term was used for horses by both Aristophanes, fr. 758 (PCG) and Pherekrates, fr. 212 (PCG). Above note 45. 55 Shear 2003b: 92. 56 IG II2 2313.10, 55.

The Open Hippic Competitions

chariot (ἅρμα), the zeugos or pair and the synoris or two-horse racing chariot. Of these three types of car, the four-horse chariot was the most prestigious and is the best attested. The earliest written reference to a victory in the event seems to come from a dedication made by Alkmeonides at the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios in Boiotia (Table 5.9).57 Another victory is attested before 479 bc, with a third coming probably in the 470s. The four-horse chariot is well attested on the Panathenaic amphorae in the archaic period; the earliest example dates to about 550–540 bc (Table 5.10). As with depictions of the horse race, the age of the animals is never made clear on the prize vases. Victories are subsequently attested in the period of about 450 to 420 bc, and amphorae are known from the years between 480 and 400 bc (Tables 5.9–10). Since the event continued to be shown on jars in the fourth century, it will also have appeared on the prize list in the 380s (Tables 5.9–10). The race is well attested for the period between (probably) 202 and 150 or 146 bc, while two amphorae show that it continued to be held in the last quarter of the second century. By the period of about 300–290 bc, there was also certainly a race for the four-horse chariot pulled by colts, as we know from a dedication found at Lindos on Rhodes (Table 5.9). Since, in the 380s, the prize list certainly included a race for the less prestigious colts’ zeugos, it seems likely that the colts’ four-horse chariot was also on the programme at this time.58 It is then well attested during the period between (probably) 202 and 150 or 146 bc (Table 5.9). Both the prize list and the second-century victors’ lists mention a type of two-horse vehicle called the zeugos, while the victors’ lists also mention a second such car called the synoris (Tables 5.9 and 5.12). That there were double-length races (diaulos) for both the zeugos and the synoris in 170, 166 and 162 bc demonstrates that the two vehicles were not identical.59 Pausanias’ description of the synoris at Olympia indicates that it was a twohorse racing-chariot, a standard type of vehicle at the Panhellenic games.60 Although the zeugos has sometimes been thought to be identical with the four-horse chariot,61 the second-century victors’ lists show that it must be a third vehicle. The term zeugos itself indicates that it involved a standard 57

58 60 61

The term ἵπποι, which appears in this epigram, may be used as a synonym for ἅρμα; see e.g. Pind. Pyth. 7.4; Paus. 6.10.6 7; IvO 166; Ath. 4.168f; cf. Hdt. 6.103.2; C. Robert 1900: 145 6. The phrase ‘festival of Pallas at Athens’ in IG I3 1469.5 suggests the Panathenaia, the most important celebration in the city. Shear 2003b: 92. 59 SEG XLI 115 col. I.41, 47; col. II.40, 44, 46; col. III.29, 35. Paus. 5.8.10; cf. schol. vet. Ar. Clouds 15; schol. Tzet. Ar. Clouds 14a. Bentz 1998: 15 note 44; Patrucco 1972: 375 note 2, 382; Ziehen 1949: 478; Canali De Rossi 2011: 24, 47; cf. Bell 1989: 178 9.

187

188

The Panathenaic Games

two-horse team rather than one especially intended for racing, and they probably pulled a different kind of car from the synoris.62 Our earliest reference to a victory with the synoris comes on a victory monument found at Eleusis and dated to the first half of the fourth century bc (Table 5.9). Driving the synoris, however, appears among the typical activities of the horse-mad Pheidippides, as reported by Strepsiades at the beginning of Aristophanes’ Clouds.63 Since races for this type of vehicle were not yet on the programme at the Olympia and the Pythia in the late 420s, the impetus for practising this event must have been its inclusion in a local Athenian festival, of which the most prominent was the Panathenaia.64 It seems very likely that it was part of the programme in Athena’s games by the later 420s, and thus it should be restored on the prize list (Table 5.9).65 Since races for the zeugos were being contested in both divisions at this time, there probably were synoris competitions for colts and adult horses. Contests for both classes are certainly well attested for the period between (probably) 202 and either 150 or 146 bc (Table 5.9). In contrast, the two races for the zeugos pulled by colts and by mature animals are known only in the 380s bc from the list of prizes (Table 5.9). Panathenaic amphorae which certainly show a two-horse chariot first appear in the first half of the second century bc; they are then attested throughout the century and down to about 100–90 bc (Table 5.10). The Panathenaic prize vessels provide us with evidence for one further hippic contest, which is not otherwise attested in our written sources for the games (Table 5.10). These vessels show a male driver seated in a cart pulled by two equids, either horses or mules (Fig. 5.1).66 The details on the vehicle and the harness on the earliest amphora suggest that the contest is the apene or race for carts drawn by two mules, and thus the equids ought to be mules.67 Since the contest is only depicted on jars during the archaic period, it was probably dropped from the programme after about 480 bc, 62 64

65 66

67

Tracy and Habicht 1991: 199; Tracy 1991: 140 1. 63 Ar. Clouds 14 16. Synoris at the Olympia and Pythia: Weir 2004: 21 table 1.1; Golden 1998: 41 table 4. Note that the dates for the introduction of the colts’ horse race and the colts’ synoris at the Pythia are reversed in Weir’s table; Paus. 10.7.8. Shear 2003b: 92 with note 18. On the identity of the equids, see Kratzmüller 1993: 86 7 with further references; Moore 1999: 43. Note that all chariots, whether pulled by two or four horses, are driven by standing charioteers. Kratzmüller 1993: 81 9; Moore 1999: 43. Contrast the depiction of the earliest four horse chariot on Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Florence, 97779: Bentz 1998: 6.008, pl. 6 (cf. Fig. A3.2). On the apene, see also Paus. 5.9.2; cf. schol. Tzet. Ar. Clouds 14a. Moore wrongly identifies the race for mule carts as the synoris, a completely different race, which involved chariots and horses; Moore 1999: 43.

The Open Hippic Competitions

189

Figure 5.1 Panathenaic amphora attributed to a painter near the Kleophrades Painter, c. 500 480 bc: mule cart (apene) race (British Museum, London, B 131).

190

The Panathenaic Games

hence its absence from our written sources. Victors clearly received amphorae of oil. It seems likely that the event was among the open hippic competitions, but only during the archaic period. As this discussion has brought out, during the archaic and classical period, there seems to have been a degree of fluidity in the programme of the open hippic events which was lacking in the first half of the second century bc, when the events were fixed and without variation. In the later period, only six events were held: races for adult and colt racehorses and competitions for four-horse chariots pulled by colts and mature animals and for the synoris drawn also by colts and adult horses. In contrast, in the earlier periods, there was more variation: mule-carts only in the sixth century and the races for the zeugos drawn by young and mature animals perhaps only in the early fourth century bc. The inclusion of these less usual events suggests a desire to increase participation by providing additional opportunities for racing. Since the animals were ridden and driven by professional jockeys and charioteers rather than their owners, the open hippic events enabled older individuals to compete who would not have been successful in the other areas of the games.68 In the first half of the second century, the known victors include women, who had no other means of participating in the games.69 They also include a significant number of royals, both male and female.70 In this period, competing successfully against the royal racing teams will have required significant resources which most individuals would not have possessed. The dominance of royals and the elite of Hellenistic societies may also explain a peculiar aspect of our evidence for the open hippic events: they are not attested after about 100 bc at the latest (Table 5.10). Perhaps they continued into the first century bc, when the six open hippic events were all certainly being held at the Amphiaraia at Oropos.71 The kings and their friends did not survive the end of the first century bc; in their absence, the open hippic events apparently ceased to be held, as we shall see when we discuss the overall programme of the games.

68

69

70

Jockeys and charioteers: e.g. Shear 2007c: 137; Tracy and Habicht 1991: 201, 216 17; Kyle 1992: 89; Bell 1989: 177; Crowther 1994: 128; Nicholson 2005: 1 2, 108 10. Such professionals are attested at the Panathenaia in the second half of the sixth century; IG I3 1469; Archaeological Museum, Nauplion, Glymenopoulos Collection 1: Bentz 1998: 6.051. IG II2 2313. 9, 13, 15, 60; 2314 + SEG XLI 114.8, 50, 54, 95; SEG XLI 115 col. I.31, 32, 33, 34; col. II.29; col. III.12, 18, 22. Shear 2007c: 136, table 1. 71 Amphiaraia: I.Oropos 525.52 63; 527.13 24; 529.15 20.

Tribal Hippic Events for Individuals

Tribal Hippic Events for Individuals The open hippic events comprised only one part of the overall hippic games. The second part consisted of races limited to citizens of the city, who represented their tribes. As with the open events, the tribal hippic events consisted both of races on horseback and of contests for a variety of different sorts of vehicles, including some which were never used in the hippic competitions open to all comers. Unlike in the open events, none of these contests was held for multiple divisions, and the contestants presumably used adult animals. In general, they also seem to have been competing in their own person, rather than hiring professionals to race on their behalf. This situation is particularly clear in the first half of the second century bc, when the racehorses are described as hippos (ἵππος) rather than keles (κέλης), the term used for the thoroughbred animals of the open events.72 As we shall see, the programme for these tribal hippic events seems to have been particularly subject to change, and we can see considerable variation over time, especially in the first half of the second century, when these competitions are particularly well attested. Since these events were open only to Athenian citizens, they provided them with additional opportunities for participating in the games and the festival. They also included a significant number of militarily flavoured events which also served to distinguish this part of the programme from those competitions open to all comers. While our best evidence for the individual tribal hippic events comes from the second-century victors’ lists, we do have some indications that such competitions existed in the later fifth century and the fourth century bc (Table 5.11). The situation prior to this period is difficult to ascertain. As we saw when we discussed the invention of the apobatic contest in Chapter 2, that event appears in Attic vase painting in the period between about 525 and 480 bc, and further evidence suggests that this competition was already connected with the festival in 566 bc. Our combined testimonia point to the restricted nature of the event: all the known victors at the Panathenaia are Athenians (Tables 5.11–12); in Theophrastos’ day, the apobatic contest was only practised by Athenians and Boiotians; and, at Athens, it was restricted to the Panathenaia.73 It seems likely, consequently, that the apobatic race was

72

73

Tracy 1991: 141; Tracy and Habicht 1991: 199; Shear 2007c: 137 8. In the 380s, the κέλης may have been used; see SEG LIII 192.120. Above Chapter 2 with note 55.

191

192

The Panathenaic Games

included in the games in the archaic period and that participation in it was limited to Athenians, however exactly they were organised.74 The evidence for such contests in the fifth century is extremely exiguous. The apobatai on the Parthenon frieze (Fig. 4.3) together with the musings of Pheidippides’ mother about how her son will drive a chariot up to the Akropolis when he grows up suggest that the event continued to be held in the games.75 At the beginning of the play, Pheidippides mumbles in his sleep about the number of laps which the war-chariots (πολεμιστήρια) will race.76 Racing war-chariots was never an event at the Panhellenic festivals; consequently, as with the synoris, the impetus for practising with this type of vehicle must have been a local festival, the most important of which was the Panathenaia. Indeed, in the second quarter of the second century bc, we shall see exactly this event on the programme of the individual tribal contests in the hippodrome (Table 5.13). Since the race was not a standard one at the Panhellenic games, it seems likely that, in the later fifth century bc, its practitioners were Athenians and that only Athenians could compete in this event. How long it stayed on the programme after the late 420s is unclear, but there does not seem to have been enough room for the event on the prize list in the 380s, when it must no longer have been part of the games.77 In the fourth century, our written and visual evidence shows that the apobatic race continued to be part of the programme down until at least 312/11 bc (Table 5.11). During this period some Panathenaic amphorae are preserved, and they would have been prizes for the victors (see Fig. A3.2). Originally, it will also have been included in the prize list.78 This document also provides us with evidence for a separate subgroup of hippic contests, which are specifically described as being ‘for warriors’ (πολεμιστηρίοις) and for which the victors were awarded jars of oil (Table 5.11). The existence of a separate heading for this section should indicate that these competitions were not open to all comers and were restricted in some way.79 Participants competed 74

75 76

77 79

Contra: Neils 2012: 206 7. Perhaps participants represented the gene which seem to have provided the model for the activities of the Kleisthenic tribes; see below Chapter 6. The organisation of competitors was presumably the same for both the apobatic race and the pyrrhiche, on which see the discussion below. Ar. Clouds 69 70; above Chapter 4. Ar. Clouds 28. Note that the form, τὰ πολεμιστήρια, requires an understood ἅρματα rather than συνωρίδες: we must be dealing with four horse chariots. Shear 2003b: 93. 78 Shear 2003b: 92. SEG LIII 192.119. I remain unpersuaded by Bell’s assumption that the heading referred to the type of horse, i.e. warhorses, rather than to the type of participant, warriors; Bell 1989: 179, 183. Neither this list nor the preserved victors’ lists are set up in this way.

Tribal Hippic Events for Individuals

in four events: the horse race, the zeugos, the processional zeugos and the javelin throw on horseback (ἀφ᾿ ἵππο ἀκοντίζοντι) (Table 5.11). The first two events were presumably like the parallel races in the open hippic events, while the processional zeugos must have differed in some way from the ordinary vehicle of this name.80 The final contest required participants to throw javelins at a target while riding their horses, and is also attested by several prize amphorae dating to the years between about 410 and 363/2 bc (Table 5.11).81 The heading for this group of events specifies only that they are ‘for warriors’; the exact identities of the participants are evidently supposed to be clear to readers. That the victors received Panathenaic amphorae need not indicate that these contests were open to all, because the victor in the apobatic race was also rewarded with jars of oil, as the extant vases indicate. In the second quarter of the second century, when the individual tribal hippic events are well attested, the processional zeugos reappears among these contests (Tables 5.12–13). The horse race for warriors on the prize list finds a parallel in the race for the warhorse, which initially was open to all members of the Athenian cavalry, but then was divided into two events restricted to the phylarchoi, the commanders of the tribal units, and the hippeis or cavalry respectively (Table 5.12).82 The inclusion of races specifically for military officers and the Athenian cavalry by 170 bc suggests that, at this festival, there was a tradition of hippic events open only to citizen warriors. Since the contests ‘for warriors’ in the prize list all involved horses, it is possible that they were limited to members of the city’s cavalry, who would have ridden their own horses in at least two of the events. If they wore their armour during the horse race and the competition for the zeugos, their separate status would have been emphasised, and the martial nature of these events, as well as the javelin throw, would have complemented both the apobatic race with its armed contestants and the festival’s overall military theme. The individual tribal hippic contests reappear in the early second century in the list of victors for 182 bc (Table 5.12). At that time, they consisted only of four contests, two of which, the apobatic race and the event for the dismounting charioteer (ἡνίοχος ἐγβιβάζων), appear regularly

80

81

82

The inclusion of the processional zeugos both in this section of the prize list and with other individual tribal races in the second century victors’ lists (Table 5.13) demonstrates that this event was a race and not an ‘épreuve de parade’, as Strasser suggests; Strasser 2001: 285. This contest reappears in the games of the Theseia in 161/0, 157/6 and 153/2 bc; IG II2 956 col. II.90 1; 957 col. II.83; 958 col. II.95 6; on the dates and the festival, see Bugh 1990. Second century developments: Shear 2007c: 139 40; cf. Tracy and Habicht 1991: 199 200.

193

194

The Panathenaic Games

on the lists of victors between 182 and either 146 or 142 bc.83 That individual tribal events were not reintroduced in 182 is suggested by the first preserved line of IG II2 2313, which preserves the extreme right end of the line and shows that the victory was tribal; this list probably dates to either 210 or 206 bc.84 These races developed rapidly in the years after 182: by 178, the number of races had increased to thirteen, and they were being held in the hippodrome, as well as a second location (Tables 5.14–15).85 Two of the lists locate the second set of events ‘at the Eleusinion’, which ought to mark the end of the races; they must have started just inside the Dipylon Gate in the Kerameikos and followed the route of the Panathenaic Way.86 It may well have been these tribal races which caused this section of the processional route to be called the Dromos (‘race-course’).87 It was presumably the traditional home for the individual tribal hippic events already in the late fifth and the fourth centuries bc. Once the set of events in the hippodrome was introduced, both groups of competitions developed rapidly. In 178, the races on the Panathenaic Way included contests for the warhorse, as well as the diaulos or double-length race and the akampion or single-length race for horses (Tables 5.12 and 5.14). Since warhorses were presumably only owned by members of the cavalry, these events, in practice at least, must have been restricted to them.88 By 170, these events had been doubled in number and divided into two classes, one for the phylarchoi and a second for the (rest of the) cavalry (Tables 5.12 and 5.14); they continued to be held in this fashion down to 150 or 146 bc, and they were probably also on the programme four years later, when the relevant section of the list of victors is not preserved (Tables 5.12 and 5.14). From 178 on, the races for the cavalry, for the apobatai and for the dismounting charioteers were 83

84

85

86 87 88

The apobatic race also seems to be attested by a fragment of a prize amphora, Agora Excavations, Athens, P 1893, which must date before the beginning of the construction of the Middle Stoa in c. 180 bc; G. R. Edwards 1957: 342 no. 23, pl. 81. That the charioteer looks back over his shoulder suggests that this scene is not a chariot race. For the date of the Middle Stoa, see Rotroff 1982: 102 and Rotroff 1997: 457 (deposit H K 12 14). IG II2 2313.1; above note 48. This list was evidently organised differently from the list for 182, IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.1 56. In the list for (probably) 198, the tribal events presumably also came at the end, i.e. after IG II2 2313.61, as they seem to have done in the list for either 210 or 206, i.e. the list ending with IG II2 2313.1; above note 48. On IG II2 2313, tribal events cannot have filled the now lost section between lines 16 and 17 in column II, because line 17 records a victor with an ethnic and not the necessary name of his tribe. Most probably the events belonged to the musical games. Evidently not all the lists on this stone were set up the same way. Hippodrome: IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.84; 2316.41 2; 2317 + SEG XLI 118.36; SEG XLI 115 col. I.27; col. II.21; col. III.11; Tracy and Habicht 1991: 198; Shear 2007c: 137. IG II2 2316.16; 2317 + SEG XLI 118.48; Tracy and Habicht 1991: 198; Shear 2007c: 137. Himer. Or. 47.12 (Colonna). Compare Tracy and Habicht 1991: 200; Shear 2007c: 139 40.

Tribal Hippic Events for Individuals

accompanied by a number of other competitions for different sorts of two- and four-horse chariots (Table 5.12). The number of competitions ranges from three in 178 to seven in either 146 or 142 bc, and the exact composition of the programme at any given festival exhibits a certain amount of variation (Table 5.14). In general, the focus was on events requiring the (two-horse) synoris or the zeugos, rather than the more prestigious (and more expensive) four-horse chariot. Once the individual tribal events in the hippodrome were introduced, they also proved to be popular: from five races in 178, they expanded to ten by 170 bc, and the number remains high, between seven and ten competitions (Table 5.15). All the events of 178, the long-distance horse race, the four-horse war-chariot, the diaulos for the zeugos and the diaulos and akampion for the synoris remained on the programme through 150 or 146 bc (Tables 5.13 and 5.15). While some races, such as those for the fourhorse chariot and the synoris pulled by adult animals, were apparently not popular and were only held once, others, like the war-synoris and the processional zeugos, appear repeatedly. These tribal races in the hippodrome were evidently so popular that, in 170 and 166, some of the synoris events were run multiple times! In as far as we can track them, all these individual events were open only to Athenian citizens who, after the introduction of the Kleisthenic system, represented their tribes. The involvement of the cavalry and the use of regular riding horses rather the racing thoroughbreds suggests that these Athenians normally competed in their own person and did not hire jockeys and charioteers to race on their behalf, as in the open events.89 These tribal competitions offered Athenians additional opportunities for participation which were not open to non-citizens: on this part of the programme, there was a distinct division between Athenians who competed and nonAthenians who watched citizens take part. Many of these restricted races had a distinctly military flavour; in at least some of the second-century cavalry races, the participants also wore armour, while, in the apobatic race and the fourth-century javelin throw, the contestants were certainly armed.90 In the period between 182 and 146 or 142 bc, the extant victors’ lists show that some Athenians took advantage of these additional opportunities: for

89 90

Tracy and Habicht 1991: 199, 201; Shear 2007c: 139. Armour: IG II2 2316.29; 2317 + SEG XLI 118.6. Since the first entry for the cavalry race mentions armour, I infer that it was worn in the other contests limited to the cavalry and their officers. This kit was presumably not a new addition in 158 bc.

195

196

The Panathenaic Games

example, Mikion, the son of Eurykl[eides, of the tribe Erechtheis] won one event on the Panathenaic Way in 182 and another in 178, when Mnesitheos, the son of Ech[edemos, of the tribe Pandionis] was successful in two events in the same venue; Sogenes, the son of Sogenes, of the tribe Aigeis won two races in the hippodrome and one on the Panathenaic Way in 166; and his brother Sokrates, the son of Sogenes, of the tribe Aigeis won two events in 170 on the Panathenaic Way and, in 166, was successful in one event on the Panathenaic Way and in the hippodrome respectively (Tables 5.12–13)! These men were not unique in this period. These tribal races also attracted the participation of various Attalids and Ptolemies, who had an opportunity to display their Athenian citizenship and to compete for their (Athenian) tribes Attalis and Ptolemais.91 I have argued elsewhere that the addition of tribal competitions in the hippodrome seems to have been intended to encourage royal participation by including contests in which the standard royal racing teams could be used.92 At the same time, the addition of other events on the Panathenaic Way provided Athenians with plenty of races in which they would not have to go up against the resources of the Ptolemies and Attalids. The variety of different competitions also seems to have been designed to draw wide participation, because they were accessible to different groups of Athenians: the cavalry and their officers, Athenians who could only afford a zeugos, men who owned a proper racing synoris and those citizens who even had a four-horse chariot (Tables 5.12–13).93 When they competed in these events, they did so against other Athenians, and so displayed their Athenian status both to each other and to all the spectators, both Athenian and foreign.

Tribal Events for Teams Contests open only to members of Athenian tribes were not limited to the hippic events which we have been discussing, because there was also a series of competitions for teams of citizens, who represented their tribes. To our eyes, the contests might appear to be an assortment of various activities which are not closely linked (Table 5.16). As we shall see, however, unity within this part of the programme was provided by the emphasis on the martial nature of the competitions and by their focus on the group: these were competitions which could not be performed by a single 91

92

Ptolemies: IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.40 2; SEG XLI 115 col. III.31 2; Attalids: SEG XLI 115 col. I.37 8, 47 8, col. III.23 4; Shear 2007c: 136 7 and table 1. Shear 2007c: 139 40. 93 Shear 2007c: 140.

Tribal Events for Teams

individual and required a team. Most of these teams consisted of adult men, but some contests, particularly the pyrrhiche, were divided into multiple classes.94 In contrast to the individual hippic events, there is no significant variation over time among the team competitions, and the programme seems to have been quite fixed. As with the individual tribal events, the team contests also provided additional opportunities for citizens and citizens-to-be to take part in the games. In our written sources, competitions for the pyrrhiche are attested already in the late 420s bc, when they appear in Aristophanes’ Clouds in a passage which most probably concerns men (Table 5.16).95 Since the speaker of Lysias 21 served as choregos for a team of beardless youths at the Little Panathenaia of 403/2, it seems likely that, at this time, the youths already had a contest of their own at the penteteric festival.96 The different classes, consequently, existed before the prize list was written up in the 380s. These competitions continued to be attested later in the fourth century bc (Table 5.16).97 As we saw in Chapter 2, the pyrrhiche is shown in Attic vase painting between about 520–510 and 460 bc. Since the scholia on Aristophanes’ Clouds specifically associate this contest with Athena’s festival and not with any other celebration in the city,98 these vase paintings suggest that the pyrrhiche was already part of the Panathenaia in the later sixth century and the earlier part of the fifth century bc. As we saw in Chapter 2, performing in the pyrrhiche required the contestants to imitate the goddess, a situation which emphasised their close links to her. In the prize list, the competitions for the pyrrhiche are followed by the entry for the euandria, ‘manly excellence’, which is to be held for only one

94 95

96 97

98

For the tribal organisation of the pyrrhiche, see Appendix 4. Immediately before the passage, Clouds 987 9, the Stronger Argument contrasts the men who fought at Marathon with the men of today, who are taught by the Weaker Argument: we must be dealing with the men’s competition here. Lys. 21.4; above Chapter 3. If we take seriously the scholia vetera on Aristophanes, Clouds 988a and their association of the pyrrhiche only with the Panathenaia, then the choregia mentioned in an honorary deme inscription dating between c. 335 and 315 bc must have taken place at Athena’s festival and not at Artemis’ Tauropolia, where scholars have wished to place it; SEG XXXIV 103.2 8; Ceccarelli 1998: 83; Knoepfler 1988: 387; Poursat 1968: 608; Lonsdale 1993: 144; Ceccarelli 2004: 99 100; Guarisco 2001: 67; date: Tracy 1995: 120 1, 124 (EM 12807). Following these scholars requires explaining the passage in the scholia vetera. That the pyrrhiche only took place at the Panathenaia is further suggested by Isaios 5.36, where the festival at which the choregia for the pyrrhiche took place cannot be the Dionysia and must be understood as the Panathenaia. Above Chapter 2 note 32.

197

198

The Panathenaic Games

class, almost certainly men.99 Alkibiades may have won a victory in this contest before 415 bc, and a later author could certainly imagine that he did so (Table 5.16). It then appears sporadically in the fourth century down to the 320s bc. Although the victorious team received a bull as the prize in the 380s, Aristotle reports that the prize consisted of shields. This reward suggests that the event had martial overtones of some sort, while the change in prize suggests a certain amount of fluidity in these tribal team events. In the prize list, the entry for the euandria is followed by one for the torch-race, with its rewards both for the victorious team and for the individual contestant. The dedications of Xenokles and Autosthenides show that the sponsoring individual held the office of gymnasiarchos, the sponsor of athletic training, a fact which allows us to identify at least one other monument as recording victories in the torch-race at the Panathenaia during the fourth century (Table 5.16).100 The event certainly existed in the late fifth century, when it was mentioned in Aristophanes’ Frogs, and apparently also in the earlier fragmentary decree about the Hephaisteia, as we saw Chapter 3. Further evidence for this competition is provided by a bell-krater dating to about 430–420 bc. It shows two beardless torchracers approaching an altar in front of which stands a hydria, while the basileus or king (archon) stands next to it and a small olive tree.101 The hydria matches the prize for the individual racer in the prize list, while the olive tree identifies the altar as the one on the Akropolis. The references to the gymnasiarchos on the mid fourth-century victory monuments (Table 5.16), together with Xenophon’s association of the ephebes, (unspecified) torch-races and gymnasiarchoi in his contemporary Poroi, indicate that the racers at this time were already the ephebes; similarly, in his commentary of Plato’s Phaidros, the Neoplatonist Hermeias links the

99

100

101

The exact nature of this contest is unclear. For some attempts at unravelling it, see Crowther 1985: 286 8; Reed 1987: 60 2; Scarpi 1979: 84 8; Gauthier 1982: 228 9; cf. P. Wilson 2000: 38 with 324 5 note 147. If Palagia is correct in her restoration of the relief of IG II2 2974 IG II3.4 331, then this monument should also commemorate a victory at the Panathenaia between 350 and 325 bc; Palagia 2000. Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, MA, 1960.344 ARV2 1041, 10: Neils 1992c: 178 9 no. 50; Kephalidou 1996: 218 no. Λ1. The basileus was responsible for all the torch races; Arist. Ath. Pol. 57.1. Since torch races at Athens were held in honour of Hephaistos, Prometheus and Pan, as well as Athena, the vase painting evidence collected by Bentz is not especially useful unless it can be connected with a specific festival; Polem. FHG III 117 fr. 6 cited by Harp. s.v. λαμπάς; schol. vet. Ar. Frogs 129c, 1087a; schol. Tzet. Ar. Frogs 135a, 1087; Suda, Phot. Lex. s.v. λαμπάδος; Patm. schol. Dem. 57.43 (Sakkélion 11); IG I3 82.30 3; Bentz 2007.

Tribal Events for Teams

ephebes with the Panathenaia and the torch-race.102 The connections between the ephebes and the race should date back to the institution of the ephebeia in the 370s.103 The identity of the racers before this time is unclear: Aristophanes describes the contestant in the Frogs as ‘some slow anthropos’, which might suggest men, but the contestants on the bell-krater are beardless; the most likely candidates, consequently, are the beardless youths. If the ephebes continued to run the torch-race at Athena’s festival after the late fourth century, then they did not specifically mention it by name in their honorary inscriptions, and the event is not recorded on any of the second-century victors’ lists.104 Indeed, the best-preserved victors’ lists do not obviously have space for recording victors in such team contests. It seems most likely, consequently, that the event ceased to be held in the early Hellenistic period.105 After the entries for the torch-race, the prize list includes a further separate section with the prizes for the contest of ships (Table 5.16). Since the number of oxen awarded to victors is significantly larger than those for the group events recorded earlier, the teams for this competition were probably significantly larger than the teams for the other events. The history of this event is obscure, because the prize list provides us with the only certain reference to it.106 After this competition, the list of prizes must originally have included entries for two further events, which are now no longer preserved: the anthippasia, a mock cavalry fight, and the cyclic chorus (Table 5.16).107 Presumably the winning teams in both of these competitions received oxen, as did the victors in the rest of the team events. For our understanding of the anthippasia, the identification of this prize is extremely important, because it allows us to distinguish victories won at 102

103 104

105

106

107

Xen. Vect. 4.51 2 (dated c. 355); Gauthier 1976: 190 3. Herm. In Phdr. 231e (Lucarini and Moreschini 40, 14 19); cf. Patm. schol. Dem. 57.43 (Sakkélion 11). Above Chapter 3 note 53. The ephebic inscriptions only mention the ephebes’ participation in (all) the torch races generically; IG II2 1006.11 Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 26.11; 1006 + SEG XIX 108.74 5 Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 26.74 5; 1008.12; 1011.9; 1028.13 14 Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 32.13 14; 1029.9 10; IG II3.1 986.13 14; 1166.13 15; 1176.14 15; 1256.9 10; 1313.11; SEG XV 104.13 14. If we wanted to follow Mitchel and to believe that the ephebeia ceased to exist for a short period after 322, then we could associate the end of the race with the termination of the ephebes’ training; Mitchel 1964; Tracy 2004: 208; Chankowski 2014: 17; Knoepfler 2015b: 68 9; contra: Couvenhes 1998; Clinton 2008: 108. I remain unconvinced that IG II2 1187.1 5 I.Eleusis 99.1 5 can support Mitchel’s conjecture. I remain unconvinced that the boat race ‘at Sounion’, which the speaker of Lysias 21 mentions, should be connected with the Panathenaia; Lys. 21.5; contra: Davies 1967: 39. There is no evidence for a boat race or naumachia at the festival in the Roman period; Shear 2012d: 165 6. Shear 2003b: 93.

199

200

The Panathenaic Games

Athena’s festival from those achieved at the Olympieia: at the latter celebration, the victorious tribe received a tripod, which was probably then erected as part of a victory monument.108 The monuments for successes at the Panathenaia show that this competition was certainly on the programme between about 390 bc and probably 290 bc (Table 5.16). In the 360s, Xenophon included a brief section on this contest in his manual for the cavalry commander. He describes the event as ‘when the tribes both flee from one another and pursue each other quickly and the hipparchoi (each) lead the five tribes’, and then he discusses how the commander might make it appear ‘more warlike and more novel’.109 The military nature of this event will have reinforced the martial theme of the overall festival. The programme for tribal teams was rounded off by the cyclic chorus (Table 5.16). As we saw in Chapter 3, this event was being held every year at Athena’s festival in the 420s, probably with separate competitions for men and for boys. At some point before 347/6, Demosthenes served as a choregos at the Panathenaia. Since he provides no details about his chorus, the event in question was probably the cyclic chorus and not a team of pyrrhichistai. As we have seen in discussing the prizes awarded to the successful tribes, some of these teams were large, particularly in the contest of ships and perhaps also in the cyclic chorus. If the ships in question were triremes, then the teams would have required 200 men, while the parallel cyclic choruses for Dionysos involved fifty singers.110 These tribal team events at the Panathenaia, consequently, provided a significant range of opportunities for Athenians to participate in the games. While some of the events, such as the pyrrhiche and the cyclic chorus, required significant skill and talent for success, some competitions did not. In the case of the contest for ships, most members of the team needed strength and a willingness to row, skills which were probably quite common. In contrast to the individual tribal competitions, the team events involved Athenians who were not adult males: the pyrrhiche was also contested by boys and beardless youths, while, after the introduction of the ephebeia in the 370s, the torch-race 108

109 110

Tripod: Agora XVI 203.1 4. Monuments for the Olympieia: IG II2 3130 IG II3.4 252 National Museum, Athens, 1733: Kaltsas 2002: 254 no. 530; Goette 2007b: 121, fig. 4; IG II3.4 265. Since tripods were not awarded to victors in the Panathenaia, as I have noted elsewhere, the Bryaxis Base (IG II2 3130) cannot have commemorated a victory in Athena’s games, as Goette implies; Shear 2003a: 171 note 37; Goette 2007b: 121 2. Xen. Eq. mag. 3.11, 13. The two hipparchoi commanded the cavalry. Teams of 200: 170 rowers, 10 deck soldiers (epibatai), 4 archers, 6 petty officers and 10 sailors, as well as the trierarch (commander); Morrison, Coates and Rankov 2000: 107 17 with further references. Choruses: schol. Aischin. 1.10; Pickard Cambridge 1988: 75; Shear 2013b: 391.

The Overall Programme

seems to have become the ephebes’ special activity. Additionally, these tribal events provided opportunities for Athenians from different economic circumstances. Certainly, the pyrrhiche and the cyclic chorus must have required significant advanced preparation and time, which would not have been within the means of all members of the tribe. In the anthippasia, the tribe was represented by its tribal cavalry contingent, a group composed of socially and financially better-off members of the tribe. In contrast, the team for the contest of ships probably did not require significant amounts of advanced practice, and it would have been open to less well-off members of the tribe, men who perhaps would have rowed with the city’s fleets rather than fighting with the hoplites. Similarly, after the reform of the ephebeia in the middle of the 330s, when most, if not all, Athenian youths seem to have been participating in military training,111 the tribe’s team for the torch-race offered less well-to-do young men an opportunity to participate in the games. When Athenians took part in these various tribal contests, they engaged in events which had a distinctly military flavouring. The martial associations of the pyrrhiche, the dance in arms, the contest of ships and the anthippasia are particularly clear. The euandria also seems to have had a military aspect. Once the torch-race became the province of the ephebes, then their status will have endowed this event, too, with a martial flavour, at least in the eyes of local spectators, who knew these participants’ position in Athenian society. That the representatives of the tribes included not just adult male citizens, but also citizens-to-be in the form of boy pyrrhichistai and the city’s newest citizens in the youth pyrrhichistai and ephebes, brought out both the importance of taking part in the games and the connection between this participation and being an Athenian citizen. In the setting of the Great Panathenaia, the tribal team events explicitly displayed the association between the festival and citizenship, here presented in its hardest and most political form.

The Overall Programme of the Great Panathenaia Our discussion thus far has concentrated on the extant evidence for the various different parts of the games, the musical events, the athletic competitions, the various hippic races open to all participants and the tribal 111

As Aristotle’s description suggests; Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.1 2; Chankowski 2010: 125 7, 131 with further references.

201

202

The Panathenaic Games

contests for individuals and for teams. Bringing together the various threads of these discussions allows us to examine how the games developed over time, and it helps to elucidate both the earlier phases of the programme and especially the developments of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. As our earlier discussions have already indicated, the roster of events does change over time, but it does not necessarily change in the ways in which we might expect. Most strikingly, the tribal team events seem not to have had a very long history, and their demise appears to be connected to other developments in early Hellenistic Athens. The hippic competitions, both open and tribal, also have a history which differs noticeably from that of the athletic and musical games. As we have seen, by about 550 bc, about sixteen years or five festivals after the foundation of the Great Panathenaia, the programme already included a significant number of events: the men’s stadion, diaulos, hoplites and pentathlon; the boys’ stadion; races for the four-horse chariot and the apene; and competitions for the auloidos and the kitharistes. The apobatic race was very probably also included, and it was likely already limited to Athenians, however exactly they were identified and organised. Comparison with the Panhellenic models of the Olympia and the Pythia is both instructive and revealing. The Olympia provided a model in which events had been added individually over time, while the programme at the Pythia consisted of a large group of events which were established all at once.112 With the exception of the musical contests, two boys’ events (the diaulos and the dolichos) and some of the hippic competitions, all the events on the original programme at the Pythia were already part of the Olympia at that time. For the Great Panathenaia, these comparisons suggest that, in 566, the roster of competitions was designed with groups of events across the categories of the musical, athletic and hippic games and that it included competitions on the programmes at the Olympia and the Pythia, as well as certain other events (Table 5.17). Whether a contest for rhapsodes was already being held at Athens is very difficult to ascertain. If this restored programme is correct, then several important consequences follow from it. Although the roster is based on the events at the Olympia and the Pythia, competitions for the kitharistes, the hoplites and the apene were being held at Athens before they were included at either of the two Panhellenic festivals.113 Evidently, influences were working in both directions. 112 113

Golden 1998: 40 1 with table 4; Weir 2004: 21 table 1.1. Kitharistes: 558 bc at the Pythia; hoplites: 520 bc at the Olympia and 498 bc at the Pythia; apene: 500 bc at the Olympia; Golden 1998: 41 table 4; Weir 2004: 21 table 1.1; cf. Neils 2007: 46.

The Overall Programme

The period between about 550 and 480 bc witnessed a number of important developments. In the musical games, the rhapsodic contest was certainly on the programme by about 540 bc, and some events now seem to have been held for two classes, boys and men; in probably the 530s, Hipparchos introduced the rule that the songs had to be recited in order. More important developments took place in other areas, however. By about 520 or so, the pyrrhiche was certainly being included, and it was probably already limited to Athenians, as it certainly was in the classical period;114 since it was so closely connected with the stories about the festival, it may have first appeared on the programme at an earlier date, perhaps even in the 560s. In about 520 bc and perhaps at the games of 518, the stadion for beardless youths was introduced. In contrast to the situation in 566, the events for this class were added piecemeal, so that the pentathlon and boxing were included only at the end of the century; perhaps wrestling and the pankration were also added at this time. The other big development at the end of the sixth century was connected with the institution of the Kleisthenic democracy: with the invention of the ten tribes, participants in the apobatic competition and the pyrrhiche, perhaps already held for three classes, represented their tribes, which now became the quintessential marker of Athenian citizen status in this festival. The clustering of developments around about 500 bc suggests that some, if not all, of the rest of the youths’ athletic contests were added by the newly isonomic Athenians at this time. If this reconstruction is correct, then the advent of the new isonomic system had important consequences for the programme of the games, as it did for many other areas of the festival, as we saw in Chapter 4; these developments in turn affected how participating in these games should be understood. Since, in the prize list, the victorious teams in the pyrrhiche, the euandria and the torch-race all received the same prizes, it is possible that the last two tribal team events were also added at this time.115 By the Great Panathenaia of 482, consequently, the programme had developed significantly and had become quite complex indeed (Table 5.18).

114

115

Nevertheless, Rausch and Anderson claim that the pyrrhiche was introduced after 508/7; Rausch 1998: 97 8, 101 2; G. Anderson 2003: 170 1. Compare G. Anderson 2003: 167 8, 170 1; Neils 1994a: 151; Rausch 1998: 101 2. According to Istros, the oldest of the torch races at Athens was for Hephaistos; Istros FGrHist 334 F2. It must have been introduced before the race for Pan, which was established after the battle of Marathon; Hdt. 6.105.3. It is tempting to believe that the races for Athena and Prometheus had already been established before 490, especially since the torch of the victorious runner was supposed to light the fire at the sacrifices to Athena; Herm. In Phdr. 231e (Lucarini and Moreschini 40, 16 19); above note 101; contra: Bentz 2007: 80.

203

204

The Panathenaic Games

In the years after 480 bc, the most obvious major development was the termination of the musical games and then their reintroduction, perhaps together with the competitions for cyclic choruses, in 446 bc. The situation with the tribal team events is less clear, especially if the euandria and/or the torch-race had not been instituted by 482 bc. Understanding when exactly these competitions were introduced ought to clarify at least some of the politics of participating in them. Although the anthippasia is not attested until about 390 bc, it seems likely that its institution should be connected with the expansion of the city’s cavalry in the middle of the fifth century bc, probably after the battle of Tanagra in 458/7.116 If this suggestion is correct, then perhaps the ten equal contingents of horsemen on the south side of the Parthenon frieze are an allusion to the (new) competition, as various scholars have suggested.117 Questions also surround the ill-attested contest of ships, which was certainly part of the programme in the 380s. Should we understand its introduction as a decision of the radical democracy of the 420s? If so, it may have been intended to provide opportunities for Athenians of lower social standing. Alternatively, it might have been added in the aftermath of the events of 480 and 479, in which case, we should seek a connection with the city’s naval prowess and her success in defeating the Persians. The contest’s addition presumably occurred at a moment when the city had a strong navy and not in the aftermath of the Peloponnesian War. For the late fifth century and the early fourth century, we have quite a clear idea of the programme of the games, because of the combined evidence of the prize list and our various other sources (Table 5.19). Indeed, the prize list provides a general outline for the situation down to the late fourth century bc, with two exceptions: from the 370s on, the torch-race was now the province of the ephebes and the contest of ships may not have continued for very long after the 380s bc. Understanding the overall programme in the Hellenistic and Roman period, in contrast, is much more complex, because of the uneven nature of our evidence, which is particularly sparse for the third century and quite plentiful for the second century bc. While the musical, athletic and hippic contests probably 116

117

At this time, the force was raised to 300 cavalrymen, and it had been expanded a second time to 1,000 by 431; Bugh 1988: 39 52, 74 8 with further references; below Chapter 6. Spence appears to favour a date closer to 477 for the increase to 300 men, but he cannot adduce concrete evidence for it; Spence 1993: 9 16. A force of 300 men would yield ten tribal contingents of thirty men and create suitable competition. Date of Tanagra: Theopomp. FGrHist 115 F88; Diod. 11.80.1 6; Rhodes 2010: 50. Ten ranks: E. B. Harrison 1984: 230 3; I. Jenkins 1994: 55 63; Berger and Gisler Huwiler 1996: 110 11; Neils 2001: 54; Neils 2012: 206.

The Overall Programme

continued in much the same form as in the fourth century, the situation with the tribal team competitions is problematic. Only the anthippasia is attested after the end of the fourth-century and only as late as probably 290 bc. In the years immediately before 282/1, the cavalry numbered only 200 men, and so it would have yielded twelve tribal contingents of sixteen or seventeen men each;118 perhaps they were not considered large enough for a suitably spectacular competition in the anthippasia. All of the tribal contests must have been affected by the end of the choregia, as part of the termination of the liturgy system, and the institution of the office of agonothetes in the years between 317 and 307 bc.119 These tribal events must have been expensive to fund: excluding the torch-race (the ephebes), the anthippasia (the cavalry) and the contest of ships (probably discontinued), ten teams were needed for each of the six different events;120 when the two Macedonian tribes were added in 307,121 twelve more teams were necessary. In contrast, the City Dionysia only involved twenty tribal teams for the cyclic chorus, ten for men and ten for boys, and, by the 330s, five teams for comedy, while, after 307, the total was thirty.122 The expense of funding all these teams at Athena’s festival should explain why, already in 282 bc, there were two agonothetai, one of whom must have been responsible primarily for the Great Panathenaia.123 Probably the great expenditures needed for all these teams led to cuts in the Panathenaic programme in the early third century with corresponding consequences both for participation and for identity creation, as we shall discuss in subsequent chapters. Similarly, the anthippasia at the Olympieia, which also must have been tribally based, is attested no later than about 270 bc.124 In contrast, tribal competitions continued to be held at the Dionysia until at least 175/4 bc.125 Certainly, by the beginning of the second century, when the extant 118 119 120

121 122

123

124 125

SEG XXI 525.1 11; Bugh 1988: 185, 186 8; G. Oliver 2007c: 173 5; below Chapter 6. Above Chapter 4 note 56. I.e. in the pyrrhiche in three classes, the euandria and the cyclic chorus in two classes. Although the gymnasiarchoi were clearly chosen by the tribes before Epikrates’ reform, as Demosthenes 39.7 shows, it is not clear to me that these officials continued to be involved after the mid 330s. Diod. 20.46.2; Plut. Demetr. 10.6; Habicht 1997: 68; Mikalson 1998: 78, 81. Arist. Ath. Pol. 56.3; Csapo and Wilson 2014: 405 6; contra: Rhodes 1981: 624. Six comedies are attested from 218/7 to the mid 140s/130s; Millis and Olson 2012: 76 7. Compare Antiphon 6.11 concerning the Thargelia only (ten choral teams). IG II2 682.53 6 IG II3.1 985.53 6; 3079.1 4 IG II3.4 528.1 4; G. Oliver 2007c: 243 note 72; Shear 2020: 282 3 with note 60; below Appendix 6. Athens was having financial difficulties at this time; below Appendix 5 note 15. IG II2 3079 crown I IG II3.4 528 crown I; Agora XVI 203; below Appendix 5. IG II2 3088 IG II3.4 539. If SEG LVII 156 is correctly dated to the third century bc, then the tribal competitions will also have continued at the Thargelia, as Wilson suggests, but see the comments of the editors of SEG on the date of this inscription; P. Wilson 2007a: 169 71.

205

206

The Panathenaic Games

Panathenaic victors’ lists begin, none of the tribal team events are included, and the layout of the texts on IG II2 2313 would appear to preclude any possibility that they appeared in the lost sections of the document. The absence of tribal team events might explain the Athenians’ zeal in participating in the individual tribal events and also why special races for the cavalry were included. In the Roman period, the musical and athletic games certainly continued to be on the programme, as we have seen. Indeed, Hadrian’s inclusion of the Panathenaia in his calendar for the major festivals and games and his specification that the games are to ‘finish on the same day . . . on which they have been finished before now’ suggests a fairly extensive programme.126 Since the Panathenaia is to be followed by the games at Smyrna, presumably the Koinon Asias, fifteen days after the race in armour at Athens, in ad 134, this contest seems to have been the final one at the Panathenaia.127 If this interpretation is correct, then Athena’s festival must no longer have included any hippic events at all.128 Currently, no such competitions either for all participants or for just Athenians are attested after about 100–90 bc (Table 5.10). The poor economic situation after Sulla’s capture of the city in 86 bc may not have encouraged wealthy Athenians to raise and to race horses either locally or abroad, although the cavalry apparently did continue to exist at this time.129 Furthermore, as we noted earlier, the open events in the second century were dominated by royals and the members of their courts. This society had disappeared by 31 bc, and it is seems likely that, due to a lack of interest, both local and foreign, the hippic events were also dropped from the programme at about this time, hence their absence from our evidence. In contrast, hippic contests continued to be part of the programmes at the Panhellenic festivals of the Olympia, the Pythia, the

126 127

128

129

Complete with choregoi, choral competitions reappear in our evidence for the City Dionysia in the later first century ad, but they were not reintroduced to the Great Panathenaia; P. Wilson 2000: 276 8; Shear 2013b. IG II2 3157.1 4 IG II3.4 561.1 4 records such a victory at the City Dionysia. SEG LVI 1359.66. SEG LVI 1359.66 8. This requirement should also indicate that the programme for the athletic games had not changed substantially from the first half of the second century bc. Nor is there time for any team contests. Alternatively, we must suppose that the technitai of Dionysos and the athletes were not expected to remain in Athens for these events. At both Smyrna and Pergamon, the race in armour was also the last item on the programme; SEG LVI 1359.68 70. Capture and economy: Habicht 1997: 306 11, 328 34 and Hoff 1997, both with further references. Cavalry: IG II2 3000; Habicht 1982: 191; Bugh 1988: 199 200. The relationship of the base IG II2 3000 to the year 31 bc is unclear to me. Habicht places the honorand’s activities in the early years of the reign of Augustus.

The City and the Games

Isthmia and the Nemea in the Roman period.130 At the Panathenaia, the first century bc and beginning of the first century ad was a time of expansion for the musical games with the addition of new competitions, particularly events for heralds and the enkomion, developments which emphasised the city’s position as a cultural centre. In this context, the contest for the enkomion offered a special opportunity for celebrating the city’s past achievements and special relationship to Athena, as Aelius Aristeides’ surviving speech demonstrates; in addition, this particular event would have offered an opportunity for rehearsing the important themes of the festival. The shifts of the programme also mark the end of any special competitions for Athenians. The elimination of both the apobatic race and the pyrrhiche removed the two events which were most closely linked with the festival’s stories; for the games overall, the effect was to make them less closely tied into the rest of the celebration. That some of the musical and athletic events are attested as late as the early third century ad should indicate that events in these two parts of the programme continued to be held. A list of victories dating to the middle of the century for a now nameless individual includes two successes in an unspecified event at the Panathenaia, while P. Herennius Dexippos was agonothetes at about the same time; presumably his tenure in this post indicates that the games continued in this period.131 Late in ad 267 or early in 268, however, the barbarian Herulians invaded Athens and did considerable damage to the western parts of the city.132 Afterwards, the city was certainly in reduced circumstances, which may have precluded elaborate games at the Great Panathenaia, hence the absence of any testimonia for them after the middle of the third century ad.

The City and the Games As we have seen throughout this chapter, for at least most of its history, the Great Panathenaia included an elaborate set of games, which offered a large array of opportunities for participation to both non-Athenian visitors and 130

131

132

E.g. IG II2 3769, which dates to the mid third century ad; Byrne 2003: 219, 535, 540. Olympia: see e.g. Moretti 1957: nos. 738, 740, 741, 750, 781, 782, 790 2, 846, 866, 895, 932; Pythia: Weir 2004: 127, 131; Isthmia: Farrington 2012: 84 table 1. Victories: IG VII 49.5; Herennius Dexippos: IG II2 3198 IG II3.4 1398; 3669.5 6 13262.5 6; Sironen 1994: 17 18. Note also that when the Athenians honoured M. Ulpius Euboitos Leuros of Gargettos about ad 230, they included proedria at all the city’s games among his benefits; SEG XXI 505.3 5; XXX 82.5 7. Dexipp. FGrHist 100 F28; Frantz 1988: 1 5; Fowden 1988: 50 3; Millar 1969: 26 9.

207

208

The Panathenaic Games

Athenian citizens. Individuals coming from abroad were limited to the open events: in music, in athletics and in the hippic sphere. In contrast, Athenians could take part not only in all these areas, but also in the tribal individual and team events. Athenians, therefore, had considerably more opportunities for participation, and these tribal events took up a significant part of the programme in the 380s and in the period between 178 and 146 or 142 bc, the two periods when the overall programme of the games is best attested. All visitors with sufficient talent, time to prepare and money could participate in the open events; as far as we can tell, there were no other limitations, so that participants did not need to come from Athenian colonies or from cities allied with Athens. The open events at the games, consequently, were the most inclusive moment of the entire festival. When these musicians, athletes and horse-owners competed, they had the opportunity to help to please the goddess and to demonstrate their (reciprocal) relationship(s) with her. For some, perhaps many, individuals, the open events offered the only opportunity to do so. When the tribal events were held, however, these visitors had no choice but to sit and watch the Athenians compete. The contrast between watching and actively participating clearly articulated the differences between visitors and Athenians, and this boundary could not be crossed. In contrast, Athenians could take part in both the open events and the tribal competitions, both those for individuals and those for teams. They had, therefore, multiple opportunities for participation, just as they did in the procession, sacrifices and other rituals which we discussed in Chapter 4. As we saw in our discussion of the team events, in the 380s and after the reform of the ephebeia in the middle of the 330s, these group competitions offered opportunities for a particularly wide spectrum of Athenians to participate, including perhaps some who would have been underrepresented elsewhere in the festival. At the same time, some members of these groups would certainly have taken part in other areas: the cavalry, apobatai and eventually the ephebes not only competed in the games in the anthippasia, the apobatic race and the torch-race respectively, but they also marched in the procession to the Akropolis. Their repeated appearances emphasised their close relationship to the goddess; for us, they usefully bring out just how important participation was in the dynamics of this festival. In the late fifth and fourth centuries bc, the tribal team events included not just citizen contestants, but also citizens-to-be and the newest citizens, as we saw earlier. These different groups emphasised the close link between participation in the tribal team events and Athenian citizenship, which was

The City and the Games

measured in Aristotelian terms of those able to take part in political life. This definition contrasts with the varying degrees of inclusion visible in the procession and sacrifices, as we saw in the previous chapter. In the first half of the second century, when only adult men seem to have participated in the tribal events, the focus was on the importance of being an adult male citizen: only mature men could control the horses involved, and only they were fully trained in the arts of war which these contests required, as I have discussed in more detail elsewhere.133 In this period, consequently, the participants in the individual tribal contests became the quintessential Athenian citizens, and only current and active full citizen status was important. Citizens-to-be were no longer the focus, and the newest citizens were not displayed with nearly as much prominence. Indeed, the ephebes seem not to have been displayed at all as a corporate group in the games. They would, in any event, have only represented a segment of the newest citizens, one dominated by the sons of families from higher social and economic strata in the city, because the ephebeia was voluntary at this time.134 Since the tribal competitions, both individual and team events, concentrated on male citizens and their male offspring, several groups of Athenians are not included in the dynamics. The metics, who did have a deme affiliation, and thus potentially a connection with a tribe, as nonAthenians, could not take part in these contests.135 Instead, they had to sit and watch the demesmen compete. At most, they could cheer on their fellow demesmen, and they may have rejoiced along with them when the deme’s tribal team won. Also completely absent here are the mothers, wives and daughters of the citizens, citizens-to-be and newest citizens so prominently displayed in the tribal events. The programme of the Panathenaia never included contests for females and, indeed, in the fifth and fourth centuries bc, these mothers, wives and daughters may perhaps not even have been present at the games or at all of the competitions.136 That they sat and watched, at most, reinforced the connections between participation in the tribal events and citizenship in it hardest and narrowest form. When tribal events ceased to be held at all, as seems to have been the case in the Roman period, then the politics of participation will have changed dramatically, and the games must have become a way for anyone with the requisite training and skills to demonstrate his relationship to Athens and her goddess. By now, the games, and so the festival itself, had evidently 133 135 136

Shear 2007c: 141. 134 Perrin Saminadayar 2007: 31, 50, 52; Pélékidis 1962: 167 9. Metics and demes: Whitehead 1977: 72 5; Wijma 2014: 31. Above Chapter 3 note 115.

209

210

The Panathenaic Games

become a considerably more inclusive event. Some of these developments may reflect larger shifts in a world now ruled by Rome. Most importantly, it was a world largely at peace and one in which citizens of individual cities were not expected to fight against external enemies. In this context, it is hard to imagine that the Athenian cavalry could have maintained the importance which it evidently had in the second quarter of the second century bc. Martial events like the pyrrhiche were also inappropriate in this setting. The contestants themselves had also changed. Those who competed at the highest level now belonged to the guild of athletes, and they had to follow an elaborate cycle of festivals which we may see most clearly as it was canonised by Hadrian.137 Winning their event(s) was their focus, and they may have had less time for, and interest in, the unusual and obscure traditions of the city. Similarly, they probably had no opportunity in their busy competition cycle to sit and watch large numbers of Athenians take part in restricted tribal contests. Discussing the different component parts of the programme and focusing on individual events, as we have done in this chapter, make the games appear heterogeneous and a vast amalgam of disparate activities. In fact, the games tied into some of the major themes and stories of the festival, and they, in turn, served to unify the programme. Particularly noticeable are the martially flavoured events. They included the hoplites and the apobatic competition, as well as the pyrrhiche, the contest of ships, the anthippasia, the contests for warriors and probably the euandria in the late fifth and fourth centuries bc; in the period between 182 and 146 or 142, there were also races for the war-zeugos, the four-horse war-chariot, the war-synoris and the events for the cavalry and/or their officers. In a number of these events, participants were armed, so that their appearance would have reinforced the martial nature of these competitions. Strikingly, all these events except the hoplites were restricted to Athenian citizens; originally, even the foot race in armour must have been rather special, because it was on the programme of Athena’s festival before it was included in the rosters of competitions for the Olympia and Pythia, as we noted earlier.138 It provided non-Athenians with their only opportunity to participate in a military event and thus to link themselves more closely to one of the

137

138

SEG LVI 1359.60 78. Guild of athletes: Forbes 1955; Pleket 1973; Aneziri 2014: 432; Fauconnier 2016: 76 90; Fauconnier 2017: 444 51. Above note 113.

The City and the Games

Panathenaia’s main themes.139 Of the tribal events, the apobatic contest and the pyrrhiche were particularly closely tied into the festival’s main themes and to the goddess, as we saw in Chapter 2. Participating in these events required the contestants to imitate Athena, and so it brought out the close relationship between the goddess and her people. Individuals from other cities were not given this opportunity, and its absence emphasised their different, and less special, connections to the goddess. The martial themes of the games, consequently, not only provided unity between the different events and linked them in with the rest of the festival, but they also enabled certain competitions to play a particularly prominent role in making clear the politics of participating in the Panathenaia: to do so was to display one’s membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’ and especially one’s citizen status. Removing these competitions from the programme, therefore, had important consequences not only for participation, but also for the relationship of individuals to the goddess and so also for identity creation. Since taking part in both the games and the rituals of the festival was clearly not neutral, we must ask exactly what was at stake for all participants. Answering this question, as we shall see in the following two chapters, requires us to consider the ways in which the Great Panathenaia served as an occasion for creating identities. 139

Originally, the connection may have been closer than it now appears. On the prize amphorae, the men competing in the contest consistently race to the left until the second half of the fourth century. The earliest example with contestants moving to the right may be Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 6374, which perhaps dates to 344/3; Bentz 1998: 4.073, pl. 115. In so doing, they run in the same direction as Athena herself moves on the front of the jars; only in the middle of the fourth century does she turn and face right; Bentz 1998: 41. In contrast, human runners on the other prize vases in the archaic and classical periods race to the right. Greek and Roman Museum, Alexandria, 18.238 is a very rare fourth century exception to this rule; Bentz 1998: 4.078, pl. 115.

211

6

212

Creating Identities at the Great Panathenaia: Athenian Men

Over the course of the previous two chapters, we have focused on the main components of the Great Panathenaia: the procession, the sacrifices and the dedication of gifts for the goddess in Chapter 4 and the elaborate and varied programme of games in Chapter 5. While, initially, these four parts of the festival might seem to have been composed of a series of unrelated and disparate elements, they were, in fact, unified by the repeated appearance of related themes centred on the gods’ military victory over the Giants. Together, these different aspects also contributed to the festival’s overall goal of pleasing the goddess Athena and securing her continuing reciprocal relationships with the city and its inhabitants. At the same time, our evidence repeatedly brings out the importance for humans of participating in the various different aspects of the celebration. As we have seen, individuals did not all take part in the occasion in the same way, but differentially, so that there were more opportunities for some people than for others. Athenian men were disproportionally represented: with the exception of certain specific contests in the games for boys, beardless youths or ephebes and the pannychis, which focused on women and girls, citizen males were active in all events. Nevertheless, there remained significant opportunities for other members of ‘all the Athenians’ to take part in different ways in the occasion. Consequently, Athenian women and girls, boys, beardless youths and (eventually) ephebes were all included, as were metics and their daughters. Individuals from beyond Athens and Attica were also incorporated into the proceedings so that, at various different periods, we find Athenian colonies and allies among the participants, as well as other cities in the period after about 229 bc. All these groups had specific roles in the procession and/or sacrifices; Athenian boys, beardless youths and ephebes also had their own dedicated competitions in the games, particularly before the early third century bc. In addition, many other individuals came from beyond Attica to take part in

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

various contests in the games.1 Unless they also were citizens of Athenian colonies or of allied cities, their participation was limited to the games, at least in the period before about 229 bc; subsequently, if their city sent a delegation with a sacrifice for the goddess, they may have been included in this group as well. These competitors and the delegations sent by colonies, allies or other cities gave the festival an important international dimension and set it apart from the Little Panathenaia. These visitors from beyond Attica also had an important part to play in the creation of identities at the celebration. As we saw in the previous two chapters, participating in the penteteric festival created a series of ideal roles for individuals, and together these roles made up the ideal community of ‘all the Athenians’. For Athenian men, there was the role of the good citizen, who was active on behalf his deme and the city both in peace and in war; in addition, he could serve the goddess Athena.2 His position as a citizen in the hard, Aristotelian sense was particularly emphasised in the games, which also provided roles for his sons as citizens-to-be and newly minted citizens and connected their activities with the importance of fighting for the city. His daughters and wife had the opportunity to serve the goddess, as did metics and their daughters. The ideal roles at the Great Panathenaia were not limited to the residents of Athens. There were also positions for the good colony and the good ally, while, after 229 bc, a role was created for other cities without a previous relationship to Athens. All of them were servants of the goddess, while the panoplies of the colonies and the allies may have suggested an additional military role on behalf of Athens for these groups. The roles for male citizens, their wives, daughters and sons and the positions for metics and their daughters should be familiar, because they are quite similar to those created by participation in the Little Panathenaia. The two contexts, however, differ in important ways: at the annual festival, only these roles existed, but, at the penteteric celebration, there were also positions for colonies, allied cities and, eventually, other Greek cities, as well as benefactors of the city, both Athenian and foreign. These additional roles had important consequences for the identities created when individuals performed the different positions open to them. Doing so produced identities for locals which focused not just on an individual’s place within 1

2

For the origins of victors in the first half of the second century bc, see the list in Shear 2007c: 142 table 4. Since the victors’ lists of this period only record winners, many more individuals from around the eastern Mediterranean were probably coming to Athens than are visible in these documents. For the definition of ‘servant of the goddess’, see above Chapter 3 note 110.

213

214

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

the city and in relationship to the goddess, but also on the individual’s identity as an Athenian in contrast to the inhabitants of other cities. Consequently, as we shall see in the next two chapters, the Great Panathenaia was an important occasion for creating Athenian identities, as well as the identities of the subgroups of the city. It also allowed the Athenians to impose identities on their visitors, as we shall see in Chapter 7. In our discussions, we shall use the interpretative approaches which we discussed in Chapter 1, and we shall particularly need to keep in mind the multiplicity of an individual’s identities and their contextual nature. Since identities are not fixed and unchanging, as they were repeatedly (re)constructed every four years at the festivities, they changed, sometimes in response to alterations in the celebration and sometimes in response to developments elsewhere in the city, often in the political realm. In this way, the Great Panathenaia not only defined its worshipping community of ‘all the Athenians’, but it also established what it meant to be Athenian. Our evidence for these processes is limited, both because our ancient sources do not preserve descriptions of particular celebrations and also because we do not have texts of songs certainly sung by the cyclic choruses or at the pannychis; only Aelius Aristeides’ enkomion has been preserved (Table 5.2). Consequently, our discussion will inevitably be quite schematic. A number of different factors are at stake in these discussions of identity, and they did not all operate on the same level. Particularly important components in these processes include individuals’ social and economic positions within society, their political affiliations, which are not always recoverable, and their gender and its performance. Age is also a factor. In addition, there is ‘national’ identity, the Athenians in contrast to other external groups, and the relationships between the present and the past. These different aspects were not fixed, but constantly changing over the course of the festival’s long history. For Athenian male citizens, these processes were particularly complex, as we shall see in this chapter. The variety of roles open to them enabled the creation of more complicated identities than was possible for other participants, whether they were also local residents or they came from other cities. To make these processes work, Athenian men had to participate in a variety of different aspects of the Great Panathenaia. The more often a man took part in the festival, the more complex his role, and so also his identities, became. As we shall see, he could also have further identities as a member of specific subgroups of Athenian men: as a member of the cavalry, as benefactor of the city, as a member of a genos, a (Kleisthenic) deme and

Being Athenian Men

a (Kleisthenic) tribe. The identities of male citizens, accordingly, were made up of different aspects, some of which would have been more salient and some less salient depending on how exactly any individual man took part in the celebration. Particularly in the games during the classical and Hellenistic periods, the definition of what it meant to be an Athenian male mapped quite closely on to a very political and Aristotelian understanding of citizenship. Consequently, the identities of Athenian men were particularly sensitive to political change in the city and they quickly reflected developments in other areas of the city’s life.

Being Athenian Men As we have seen, the ideal roles for Athenian men were the most multifaceted of all participants’ positions, and they required repeated participation in a variety of different aspects of the Great Panathenaia. The more often a man took part in the festival, the more complex his role, and so also his identities, became. This complexity is not really surprising: as a festival of the city, the penteteric celebration was organised and authorised by the demos and the boule, that is by Athenian male citizens. As the main organisers, participants and funders of the affair, they focused on themselves, so that male citizens constituted the ultimate in-group in the Great Panathenaia. As we shall see, one important aspect of their identity links to their roles in running the city, as citizens in the hard political sense. For this reason, the identities of Athenian men as created in the penteteric festival were particularly sensitive to political change in the city, and they quickly reflected developments in other areas of the city’s life. Already in 566 bc, when the Great Panathenaia was held for the first time, there is a clear linkage between the Athenian male and fighting for the city.3 It played out in the armed contingents in the procession and in the competition for the apobatai; if the pyrrhiche was already included in the games at this time, it will also have reinforced the connection between Athenian men and fighting for the city. Performing these roles allowed men to construct their masculinity at the same time. Since the arms were those of a hoplite, the ideal 3

Thus, this fundamental connection already existed in the second quarter of the sixth century. For its fundamental nature, cf. Vernant’s dictum: ‘marriage is for the girl what war is for the boy’; above Chapter 1 note 55.

215

216

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

Athenian was a man of some social stature and wealth; if we want to think in the terms of the Solonian class structure, then he was at least a member of the zeugitai, the third of the classes, and many will have been assessed as part of the top two.4 This emphasis on the economic and social stature of the ideal Athenian was reiterated in the games, because competing in them required both the leisure to train and wealth to support that training; the hippic events, including the apobatic race, particularly emphasised the high economic standing of the men involved, such as Alkmeonides, the son of Alkmeon, who won the fourhorse chariot race about 545 (Table 5.9). At this time, maleness, eliteness and Athenian status clearly belonged together. Participation in the apobatic race and the pyrrhiche brought out the special relationship between Athenian males and the goddess; as apobatai, they also displayed their close connections with Erichthonios. Having close associations with the divine marked these men as different from the inhabitants of other cities and as especially favoured by the divine. Since the sacrificial victims were given to the goddess by the entire community, all men were configured (briefly) as her worshippers, but some men, such as the board of [hieropo]ioi who made the games for the goddess, were especially marked out as her servants.5 While all the men who fought for the city served her in a general way, for magistrates such as Hippokleides, the archon in 566, and the other archons, their service to the city was particularly marked, and it would have been especially visible at the time of the procession.6 Thus, already at the very beginning of the Great Panathenaia’s history, we can see a schematic composite identity for Athenian males which consists of fighting for the city, displaying one’s close relationship to the goddess and Erichthonios, serving the goddess and working on behalf of the city. At the level of the individual, there will already have been variation, and some aspects will have been more salient than others: for example, the identities of the [hieropo]ioi were more focused on service to the goddess, while those of Hippokleides and the other archons were more concentrated on service to the city, as were those of men who marched in arms. 4 5

6

Zeugitai: Arist. Ath. Pol. 7.3 4; Rhodes 1981: 138. Board of [hieropo]ioi: IG I3 508; cf. IG I3 507. It is difficult to see how else to restore IG I3 508.7. The athlothetai are not attested until the 440s; Plut. Per. 13.11. It is likely that they existed before this time and were in charge of the games under the overall direction of the hieropoioi; Davison 1958: 33; Rhodes 1981: 670; B. Nagy 1992: 62 3. It is not clear if the athlothetai were introduced together with the games in 566 or at some later date. That magistrates including the archons took part in the proceedings is suggested by the prominent role which Hippias and Hipparchos played in the festival of 514 (Table 4.1).

Being Athenian Men

These identities were closely connected with the elite, and so the ideal Athenian male was himself marked out as a member of the elite who was economically well off. This identity leaves little room for men who could not afford to serve the city as a hoplite, and their lower social and economic statuses gave them few opportunities to construct any identity except most generally as an Athenian in contrast to non-Athenians. The power of this identity for Athenians is clearly brought out by Peisistratos, who appropriated it in order to secure the tyranny for himself in 557/6 or 556/5 bc when he returned to Athens with Phye.7 His actions focused especially on his relationship with Athena and his readiness to fight for the city, while they also implied a close connection with Erichthonios and so a (nascent) sense of autochthony. The allusion to the apobatic contest brings out Peisistratos’ high social and economic statuses. The ideas of interacting with the goddess and fighting for the city are particularly important here. For Peisistratos’ appropriation to work, Athenians had to make the connection between his actions and the Great Panathenaia. That he could use it successfully so soon after 566 indicates for us how powerful these processes of identity creation and their associated imageries were. In the aftermath of Peisistratos’ successful seizure of power in 547 and the beginning of his third period of tyranny, it is likely that these basic male identities which we first see in 566 continued to be created by men taking part in the Great Panathenaia. Peisistratos’ appropriation of this imagery in the early 550s, together with his sons’ prominent roles in the penteteric festival of 514, suggests that Peisistratos now probably used the Great Panathenaia to enhance his and his family’s power and status. In this way, taking part in the festivities also became a way for elite men to celebrate their families. When Hippias and Hipparchos were organising the procession in 514, they were particularly shown serving the goddess, as well as being men of high political, social and economic status. The armed men in the procession, like Harmodios and Aristogeiton initially, were creating identities as men who fought both for the city and also for the tyrant; consequently, they now appeared as acquiescing to the tyranny, if not as actively supporting it, while Peisistratos and his sons were shown to be especially favoured by the goddess. By implication, any opponents in exile did not have this favour and, indeed, their reciprocal relationships with Athena had been ruptured by their absence from the city. Consequently, when Aristogeiton and Harmodios decided to assassinate Hippias and his brother at the Great Panathenaia, their success would have 7

Above Chapter 2 notes 71 and 72.

217

218

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

demonstrated most clearly the goddess’ lack of support for the Peisistratidai, and it would have undermined the identities which they were creating for themselves at the festival.8 Subsequently, at the Great Panathenaia of 510, Athenian men continued to be identified as fighters on behalf of the city, but not as supporters of the tyrant. While the Peisistratid tyrannies seem to have had a limited impact on both the festival and the identities of Athenian men, the invention of the Kleisthenic democracy in 508/7 affected all aspects of the Great Panathenaia, as we have seen repeatedly in the previous two chapters, and it also led to important and lasting changes in the politics of identity at the festival. Some now anonymous men will allow us to understand how these changes worked in 506. When the demarchoi organised the procession,9 they clearly served the goddess, but, as representatives of their demes, they also served the newly isonomic and democratic city. Similarly, the Athenian military forces who marched in arms showed that to be a male Athenian was to fight for the city, which was now ruled by the demos. When the polemarchos made the offerings to Harmodios and Aristogeiton as part of their new cult, he served the heroes on behalf of the city, and his actions made explicit both that the heroes had brought about the new system and that it had cost them their lives. Subsequently, when the polemarchos marched in the procession as one of the magistrates, he signalled his service to the newly isonomic and democratic city, as well as his worship of the goddess. As these brief vignettes have brought out, Athenian men continued to have a special relationship with Athena and Erichthonios, to serve the goddess and to fight on behalf of the city, as brought out by their participation in arms in the procession and in the pyrrhiche in the games. The city, however, was now isonomic and democratic, and so Athenian men now acted as democrats and served the demos. Their activities at the celebration demonstrated their membership in the group of ‘all the Athenians’, which was also now isonomic and democratic, and thus their membership mapped directly on to citizenship in the city. Magistrates and other officials all served the isonomic and democratic city and acted on behalf of the demos. The contingents representing the new demes, the potential participation of the boule of five hundred and the probably larger military units also brought out the new inclusiveness of the festival. Involving more members of the city reinforced the isonomic nature of the city and her 8 9

Thuc. 6.56.2. There were also, of course, the practical issues adduced by Thucydides. Above Chapter 4 note 11.

Being Athenian Men

citizens. This aspect was further brought out by the addition of the cult of the Tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton, as we saw with the identities of the polemarchos. These new rituals had important effects on Athenian men more generally, because they not only reinforced their new role as democrats, but they also brought out their opposition to tyranny. Indeed, the cult must have been a major source of the democracy/tyranny opposition which would become so characteristic of Athenian life in the fifth century.10 Since the Tyrannicides, as presented both in the cult and in their statues in the Agora, were models of proper behaviour for the good Athenian male, they reinforced the identities which men created elsewhere in the Panathenaia. Despite the variation of individual men’s own particular identities, which reflected exactly how they participated, all men were configured as supporters of the new system, so that this isonomic and democratic element was impossible to escape. The political changes in the city led to a greater inclusivity and participation in public life and also a scaling back of the dominance of the elite, which we saw in the middle of the sixth century; from the perspective of participants, however, it may have rather been understood already as the adoption of elite practices by the demos, as seems to have been common in the fifth century.11 The development of this new identity in the years after 508/7 not only affected every one of the different factors at stake in identity construction, but it also had important effects on the identity politics of the Great Panathenaia, because it created the basic pattern for being a good Athenian male which would continue throughout the fifth century. When Athenian men performed their roles, they created this overall identity, but the identities also created a model and an expectation: to be an Athenian male was to perform these roles at this festival. These interlocking processes continually reinforced each other. This model was not immune to developments and events elsewhere in the celebration and the city. With the removal of the musical events and the race for the apene by the Great Panathenaia of 478, the entire celebration was now overtly more martial. In the charged aftermath of the battles of 480 and 479 and the continued fighting against the Persians, this emphasis was particularly appropriate; it reinforced and probably strengthened the importance of fighting for the city at the festivals in the 470s.12 The years after 479 also 10

11

12

K. A. Morgan 2003 and especially Raaflaub 2003, Seaford 2003, Kallet 2003, Henderson 2003 and R. Osborne 2003. E.g. [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 2.10; Loraux 1986: 23, 152, 172, 176, 180 202; Schmitt Pantel 1992: 176 7, 191; R. Osborne 1987: 104; Stewart 1997: 80 and cf. 77. I.e. in 478, 474 and 470. See also below Chapter 7.

219

220

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

witnessed the invention of freedom as a political value and the moment when the Tyrannicides most probably developed into the bringers of freedom to Athens.13 Now, the good Athenian male was not only a democrat who fought on behalf of the city, but he also acted to keep Athens free, and so he became a freedom fighter himself; the festival itself was explicitly linked with the city’s freedom. The invention of the prytaneis in the late 460s gave the boule a role in the procession, if it did not already have one, and it extended the number and variety of men who might be involved in the proceedings. The complexities which might be created by multiple roles in the celebration come out nicely in the celebration of 446 with Perikles, who was not only one of the athlothetai, but also general.14 During the Great Panathenaia, much of his time must have been taken up with his duties as athlothetes, when his primary identity was as servant of the goddess and secondarily as a man serving the city, but there may also have been occasions when his role as general was salient, perhaps, for example, at the sacrifices (cf. Table 3.1). At such moments, his dominant identity was as a democrat who was prepared to fight for the city. By the 440s, the procession certainly included old men in addition to men in their prime, as the Parthenon frieze indicates;15 the ideal Athenian male, consequently, need not be a man in his prime, while this greater range of ages reinforced the inclusiveness inherent in the democratic city as displayed in the festival. The extensiveness of the festival must also have changed men’s relationships to it and to its identity politics, because, even if they did not participate actively in one particular year and only watched the events, they may have taken part more actively in earlier celebrations, and they might well do so again in the future. As a man watched, he would have remembered his previous, more active involvement and remembered the identities which he had created, a process now reinforced by his remembering. Since the celebration commemorated victory, it seems likely that the focus on fighting for the city became more important for male Athenian identity when Athens was at war during the fifth century and perhaps particularly between 430 and 404, the time of the Peloponnesian War, than it was when hostilities were not under way. At the end of the century, in the aftermath of the two oligarchic regimes of the Four Hundred in 411 and the Thirty in 404/3, this basic male identity most probably adapted to the city’s changed political circumstances. In 410, 13

14 15

Freedom: Raaflaub 2000: 253 4, 264; Raaflaub 2004: 58 102, 117; Tyrannicides: Shear 2012c: 37 9 with further references. Athlothetes: above Chapter 5 note 12; general: Develin 1989: 84. Old men: figures N28 43, S89 106; I. Jenkins 1994: 69, 87 8; Neils 2001: 142.

Being Athenian Men

the cult of the Tyrannicides may well have received special emphasis, and the identity of the Athenian democrat who fought for the city against tyranny would have been particularly salient, as it was in other contexts at this time.16 We can see how this process might work from the (anonymous) speaker of Lysias 21, who was the victorious choregos in the men’s pyrrhiche (Table 5.16). Sponsoring this team linked him to Athena and suggested that he was prepared to fight on behalf of the city, which was once again democratic; it also allowed him to display his wealth. Since it has been plausibly suggested that he had oligarchic connections,17 his choregia allowed him to show that he was suitably devoted to serving the city ruled by the demos and to remake himself as a proper democrat. The festival’s especially close connections with democracy and the city’s democratic origins through the cult of the Tyrannicides provided an important opportunity at this time for such closet and potential oligarchs to reinvent themselves. Indeed, the democratic dynamics of the festivities meant that there was no room in them for non-democrats.18 These aspects will have been updated again at the Panathenaia of 402. Now, it was particularly important to emphasise not only the democratic nature of the ideal citizen, but also that he fought against both tyranny and other non-democratic regimes, such as oligarchy. When male citizens took part in the festival, particularly in the procession and the sacrifices, the divisions between (former) men of the city and (former) men of the Peiraieus, the two opposing sides in overthrowing the Thirty, were no longer visible, so that the citizen body was presented as reconciled and united again.19 Through the festival’s focus on democracy, men of the city and former oligarchs now had a perfect way to show their (new) positioning as democrats and their service to the city now ruled by the demos.20 Since the cult of the Tyrannicides focused on the origins of this rule and on how the city became democratic, participating in this part of the festival remade their memories of this important moment in the city’s history and showed these former oligarchs exactly what being a democrat at Athens entailed. As in 410, the Panathenaia continued to be an occasion without space for supporters of regimes other than the rule of the demos. Consequently, only democrats could have a special relationship with Athena and with Erichthonios. At the same time, participation in the celebration of 16 17 18 19 20

Other contexts: Shear 2011: 101 4, 110 11, 140, 147, 151, 153, 160 1; Shear 2007b: 151 3, 160. Davies 1971: 593; Todd 2000: 229. As was also true at the City Dionysia of 409, on which see Shear 2011: 136 63. On these processes in the aftermath of the Thirty, see Shear 2011: 204 5, 289 90, cf. 212 13. Compare the dynamics of the sacrifice to Athena on 12 Boedromion in the years after 403/2; Shear 2011: 287 9.

221

222

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

402 allowed these supporters of the demos to remake their relationships with the goddess and to repair the ruptured relations which had been caused by the oligarchy of the Thirty.21 As the years passed after the Great Panathenaia of 402, the need to reconcile the city and to reincorporate former oligarchs into it became less pressing. Consequently, the Athenian male identity must also have changed, so that the importance of fighting non-democratic regimes became increasingly less salient and was probably replaced with the older model of fighting tyrants, just like Harmodios and Aristogeiton. Other aspects of the general male identity must also have become more important, as we can see from [K]rat[e]s, the son of Heortios, who won the apobatic race at some time in the 390s (Table 5.11). During both the competition and the procession, his participation brought out his close connections with Erichthonios and Athena and his willingness to fight on behalf of the democratic city; in this way, he also created an identity for himself as a democrat. Since only citizens could take part in this competition, he also demonstrated his status as citizen, as well as his membership in ‘all the Athenians’. All these elements were important in male identities in the fifth century, and we can see here their power over individuals who conformed to them. During the period of the prize list in the 380s, we know that participation was particularly broad, because of the extensive array of tribal contests; teams for the contest of ships would have been especially large, and they would have offered opportunities for participation to men who otherwise might not have been able to compete in the games. In contrast, men on the teams for the pyrrhiche and the cyclic choruses, events which required significant advance preparation, would have come from higher socio-economic strata in Athenian society. These distinctions will have affected the identities created in ways which we can no longer identify. This broader participation seems to have been mirrored on the political side, so that the bouleutai and other magistrates also represented an increasingly wide range of citizens.22 In turn, this inclusivity reinforced the democratic nature of the festival and the democratic strand of the male Athenian identity which participation in it created. This identity must have continued to be constructed through the festival of 322.23 How exactly the identities of Athenian men changed during the 21

22 23

Compare the similar situations with the swearing of the Reconciliation Agreement in 403 and after the oligarchies of 411; Shear 2011: 140 1, 214. Broader political participation: above Chapter 4 note 177. The sacrifices took place on 28 Hekatombaion 322, while the decisive battle of Krannon was not fought until 7 Metageitnion; Plut. Cam. 19.8; Dem. 28.1.

Being Athenian Men

unsettled period after this celebration is difficult to determine, because of our lack of evidence for the festivities in the late fourth and third centuries. Politically, the period between 322 and 286 was particularly unsettled, with no less than seven different regimes of democratic, oligarchic, or tyrannical nature.24 Although various political changes are visible during the periods when the city was not under democratic rule, the system of demes and tribes, which had been introduced with the Kleisthenic democracy, continued to be used, albeit with the addition of two new tribes, Antigonis and Demetrias, in 307.25 Presumably supporters of oligarchy and tyranny understood these elements as being part of the city’s traditional way of organising herself, rather than as hallmarks of democracy; thus, they could continue to use the system of tribes and demes without difficulties. At the Great Panathenaia, we have no evidence for how these changes in regime affected the cult of the Tyrannicides. It seems more likely that it continued to be celebrated rather than being terminated. If this interpretation is correct, then, under non-democratic regimes, the rituals were presumably understood as celebrating an important moment in the city’s glorious past, but one which did not have implications for the present. In this way, the Panathenaia and the democracy could be disassociated, and the festival could remain an important religious occasion for non-democratic regimes. Under oligarchies and tyrannies, participating in the Great Panathenaia continued to allow Athenian men to create identities as individuals who fought for the city and served both the goddess and the city, as Glaukon of Aithalidai seems to have done in 290, when, as phylarchos, he led his tribal cavalry contingent both in the procession and, victoriously, in the anthippasia (Table 5.16). Men also maintained their special relationships with Athena and Erichthonios, and their actions carried on their reciprocal relations with the goddess. Participation continued to identify a man as part of ‘all the Athenians’, but the nature of this particular group now would have matched the political realities in the city. Thus, taking part in the festival would have indicated, at the very least, that a man supported the status quo, however that might be interpreted; for some men, their presence would have been a clear declaration of their support for oligarchy or tyranny. This situation would have been especially true if Demetrios of 24

25

Democracy: 318 317, 307 300, 295 294. Oligarchy: imposed by Antipater: 322/1 319/18; supporting Demetrios Poliorketes: 294 286. Tyranny: Demetrios of Phaleron: 317 307; Lachares: 300 295. For modern discussions with further references, see Habicht 1997: 42 97; Bayliss 2011: 61 128; M. J. Osborne 2012a: 20 36; M. J. Osborne 1985; Shear 2012a: 278 81. For the date of the revolution from Demetrios Poliorketes, see Shear 2010; Shear 2020: 270 note 2; contra: M. J. Osborne 2012a: 36 43, 162 3; M. J. Osborne 2015: 59 65. Above Chapter 5 note 121.

223

224

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

Phaleron or Lachares took on particularly prominent roles at the celebrations of 314, 310 or 298. Under such circumstances, supporting the status quo could not have been a neutral act. Since participants were more likely to be individuals of high socio-economic status, especially when citizenship required a minimum property qualification of 1,000 drachmai, under Demetrios of Phaleron,26 the ideal Athenian was now identified as a man of some wealth and a member of the city’s higher social strata. The male identities which were created under democratic regimes must have been different. Now, the ideal Athenian male acted on behalf of the demos, and so he was a democrat who also fought to keep the democratic city free. In this setting, the cult of the Tyrannicides presumably served the same functions as it had in the fifth and fourth centuries, so that the festival of Athena was once again closely associated with democracy. Athenian males, therefore, now properly opposed tyrants, and participation in the festival identified them as members of all the democratic Athenians. It is likely that the anti-tyranny aspects of this identity were particularly prominent at the Great Panathenaia of 306, which was held about fourteen months after Demetrios Poliorketes put down the tyranny of Demetrios of Phaleron.27 In contrast, at the celebration of 282, the first held after the revolution from Demetrios,28 greater emphasis was probably placed on the democratic elements. For some men these dynamics could be particularly useful, as we see with Phaidros of Sphettos, who seems to have been the agonothetes primarily involved in the Great Panathenaia.29 His service to the goddess and the city allowed him to reconstruct his identity as a supporter of the demos and to obscure his presence in the city in the years before the revolution when good democrats were in exile.30 Since only wealthy men could be agonothetai, Phaidros’ identities are those of a rich, but good, democrat; many men in positions similar to that of Phaidros did not have the financial resources to buy themselves new identities, and they may not have been able to count on being included in the procession. This focus on democracy at the Great Panathenaia was 26

27 28

29 30

Diod. 18.74.3; Bayliss 2011: 73 4 with further references. Under the oligarchy imposed by Antipater in 322, the minimum property qualification was 2,000 drachmai; Diod. 18.18.4; Bayliss 2011: 68 73 with further references. This regime was not in power at the Great Panathenaia either of 322 or of 318. In 318, the democracy was back in control by Phokion’s death on 19 Mounichion; Plut. Phok. 37.1 2. Demetrios Poliorketes sailed into Peiraieus on 26 Mounichion 307; Plut. Demetr. 8.4 7. Shear 2010: 141, 150; Shear 2020: 270 note 2, 282 3 with note 60; Bennett 2011: 118 24; contra: M. J. Osborne 2012a: 162 3; M. J. Osborne 2015: 59 65. IG II2 682.53 6 IG II3.1 985.53 6; below Appendix 6. Before 286: IG II2 682.30 52 IG II3.1 985.30 52; Shear 2020: 275 85; good democrats in exile: [Plut.] X orat. 851f; SEG XXVIII 60.78 83 IG II3.1 911.78 83; Shear 2012: 283 6, 290.

Being Athenian Men

mirrored elsewhere in the city at this time, and the inclusive nature of Athena’s festival would have been particularly appropriate for a regime which could described as ‘the democracy of all the Athenians’.31 Since there is no evidence for tribal team events after probably 290, as we saw in Chapter 5 (Table 5.16), the inclusion of many different Athenian men now happened in the procession and at the distribution of the sacrificial meat. The absence of competitions for the pyrrhiche made the procession into a more important venue for presenting the ideal citizen in arms and prepared to fight for the city. This image would have been reinforced in the games by contests for armed individual Athenians, particularly by the apobatic competition. Since Athens had recently regained her freedom through military action against Demetrios Poliorketes, the importance of fighting for the city must have been a particularly significant aspect of the ideal male identity at this time, as we must also imagine it to have been during the Chremonidean War, now dated to the years 269/8 to 262.32 When the Chremonidean War ended in the summer of 262, the city once again came under direct control of Macedon and ceased to be democratically ruled internally.33 Under these conditions, the more democratic version of the ideal Athenian male identity was no longer appropriate, and it seems likely the identities created at the festival now resembled those created during the periods of oligarchy between 322 and 286. Herakleitos of Athmonon, who seems to have been agonothetes in 258,34 allows us to see this process at work. Acting as agonothetes identified him as a wealthy man who was serving the goddess. When he dedicated to Athena Nike the [ste]lai showing Antigonos Gonatas’ deeds, he also created an identity as someone who actively supported the Macedonian king;35 at this moment, his support for the regime was more important than his service to the goddess. Consequently, participation in the festival of 258 marked a man as someone supporting the current political status quo, and it may not have left much room for ardent democrats from the 31 32

33

34 35

SEG XXVIII 60.82 3 IG II3.1 911.82 3. Start: IG II2 686 + 687 IG II3.1 912; M. J. Osborne 2009: 89; M. J. Osborne 2012a: 127 9; Byrne 2006/7: 175 9; end: Apollod. FGrHist 244 F44 with Dorandi 1990: 130 1; M. J. Osborne 2009: 90. On the war generally, see Habicht 1997: 142 9 and G. Oliver 2007c: 127 31, both with further references. End of war: above note 32. The Great Panathenaia ought to have been celebrated in Hekatombaion of 262. Since the war ended in the summer of 262 with Athens under a close siege, it is not at all clear to me that this festival was, in fact, held. The stadium was apparently in need of repair in the years immediately after the war; IG II2 677.3 IG II3.1 1034.3; below note 67. See the discussion below and Appendix 6; for the Panathenaia of 258, see Shear 2020: 276. [Ste]lai: above Chapter 4 with note 166. For his service to the king, see IG II2 1225; Paschidis 2008: 177 9 with further references.

225

226

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

Chremonidean War period. Once Antigonos Gonatas ‘gave freedom to the Athenians’, probably in 256/5, then the changed political situation would have diminished this aspect of the ideal male identity.36 Since the city was now (nominally) free, a man could be understood not just as fighting for the city, but as fighting to keep the city free, an image potentially reinforced by the Tyrannicides’ cult. Indeed, it seems likely the notion of the city’s freedom was particularly emphasised at the Great Panathenaia of 254, the first penteteric festival after Antigonos Gonatas loosened his control on Athens. As during earlier periods of oligarchy and tyranny, it is likely that men of higher socioeconomic statuses were now more prominent in the festival than they had been between 286 and 262, so that the image of the ideal male was as a member of the wealthy and socially connected elite; certainly all the known treasurers of the Panathenaia, obvious servants of Athena, fit this model.37 This version of the ideal male identity presumably continued until 229, the year in which the Athenians literally bought back their freedom from the Macedonians and, consequently, became democratically ruled again.38 These events, together with the new inclusiveness of the festival, had important effects on the identities of Athenian males. Certainly, they continued to fight for the city to keep her free and democratic, to serve the demos and the city and to have a special relationship with Athena and Erichthonios. Their participation showed that they were democrats who protected the city and did not support tyranny. Since cities without previous connections to Athens were now sending delegations with sacrifices to the festival, as we saw in Chapter 4, the nature of the community of ‘all the Athenians’ changed: it was no longer restricted to individuals and groups with close ties to Athens and her goddess, and it included other peoples and cities. Thus, for male Athenians, participation in ‘all the Athenians’ no longer mapped so closely on to citizenship. Instead, their citizenship was now brought out by their deme and tribe affiliations, markers which the newcomers lacked. They were visible when meat from any deme and tribe sacrifices were distributed and especially in the individual tribal contests in the games. Consequently, participants in these competitions became the quintessential male Athenians, as we noted in Chapter 5. We must understand the expansion of these contests in the 170s and 160s, therefore, as an attempt not only to increase the opportunities for citizens to participate, but also to provide them with additional occasions for demonstrating their 36 38

Freedom: above Chapter 4 note 168. Above Chapter 4 note 59.

37

See below Appendix 6.

Being Athenian Men

citizenship. Since many of the individual tribal contests involved martial elements (Tables 5.12–13), they reinforced the idea that the male citizen was prepared to fight for the city. That all these competitions were hippic also had consequences for the identity of the ideal Athenian male: to participate, he had to have significant financial resources and to be a member of the city’s upper social strata, albeit in the service of the democratic city. By the 170s and the 160s, consequently, the good citizen now looked rather more elite than he had done during the 380s, when the extensive range of tribal team events allowed much broader participation. Of course, in the second century, less well-off Athenians may not have seen this development as negative, and they may have understood it as the appropriation of elite activities by the demos and the democratic city. After the middle of the second century, our evidence for the Great Panathenaia is distinctly thinner, and so it become much harder to track the changes to male Athenians’ identities. It seems likely that the version of the 170s and 160s continued to be created during the later second and earlier first centuries bc, as we see with Miltiades, the son of Zoilos, the agonothetes whom we met in Chapter 1;39 like other holders of this office, he created an identity for himself as a (very) wealthy servant of the goddess who made sure that the festival happened as it should and so also served the city. The changing political situation in the first century may well have affected this imagery in ways which we can no longer identify. Once Athens came under direct Roman control in the aftermath of the battle of Actium in 31, the identities of Athenian males must have changed significantly. The city was no longer free and independent, and Roman control made the Athenian military forces unnecessary. In the games, tribal contests, martial or otherwise, are no longer attested. The overall festival must have been less elaborate and more focused on the procession and perhaps also on the cult of the Tyrannicides. These developments had important consequences for the identities of Athenian men. Marching in the procession, organised perhaps by deme and by tribe, allowed them to demonstrate their participation in the community of ‘all the Athenians’, a group which now probably did not include delegations from other cities; certainly none are attested. These actions, in turn, brought out their special relationship with Athena and also showed them (indirectly) serving the city as well as honouring the goddess. The cult of the Tyrannicides stressed their (historical) opposition to tyranny, a role still reflected in Philostratos’ treatment of the cult in the early third century ad.40 Without any tribal contests in the 39

Above Chapter 1 with note 1.

40

Philostr. VA 7.4.3 (Jones).

227

228

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

games, there was significantly less emphasis on tribe and deme affiliation, unless individual demes actually still sent animals for sacrifice, a practice really only attested much earlier in the festival’s history (Table 4.10). Men from the high socio-economic classes were probably over-represented in these different parts of the celebration, so that the ideal male citizen was understood as a member of the upper strata of the city’s society. At the same time, there seems to be no evidence that this male Athenian identity focused on a man’s relationship to Rome. Indeed, Rome seems to be strikingly absent from the imagery of the festival at this time, almost as if her control of the world did not exist. Once this new identity for Athenian males was developed, probably in the late first century bc, it seems to have continued in use well into the imperial period. There is no evidence suggesting that it changed when the festival became eiselastic in ad 119, for example. It seems likely, consequently, that it continued to be constructed by participants until after ad 267, when the Herulians attacked Athens. That the elaborate ship-car is attested as late as the late fourth century ad (Table 4.6) indicates that the procession also continued at this time. Since our evidence focuses on the vehicle, we do not know exactly what other elements were involved in the proceedings. Probably at least some Athenian men continued to march, so that the procession continued to be an occasion when they could construct their identities as members of ‘all the Athenians’ and as individuals who served the city and potentially the goddess. They may also have continued to understand their actions as demonstrating their special relationship to Athena. Thus, for over 950 years, the Great Panathenaia was an occasion for creating identities for male Athenians through their participation in the festival. Taking part in the events showed their membership in the group, both of ‘all the Athenians’ and also in the smaller body of male Athenian citizens. Perhaps due to the limitations of our evidence, the overall identities of these men seem to be more complex in the archaic, classical and Hellenistic periods than in the Roman period, when they appear to have become less complicated and so simpler. Nevertheless, in all periods, the identities of male Athenians involved a number of different elements, some of which were more salient and some less at any given moment in the festival, as we saw, for example, with Perikles and Herakleitos. Carrying out these identities in the course of the festival also created expectations about how an Athenian man should act, so that the processes and the identities affected and reinforced each other. In addition, the identities of male Athenians were closely tied to their role as citizens of the city who were

The Athenian Cavalry

active in her governance. Consequently, these identities focused primarily on men over the age of thirty who were eligible to hold public office,41 and there were many fewer opportunities available for men aged twenty to thirty. These associations with citizenship caused the men’s identities to reflect changes in the political sphere, especially at the level of the city’s constitution. This political sensitivity stems from the changes made to the Great Panathenaia at the end of the sixth century bc and particularly to the addition of the cult of the Tyrannicides, which firmly linked the festival, the rule of the demos and opposition to tyranny. These political connections and this identity’s multifaceted nature are particularly characteristic of what it meant to be an Athenian male. They made this identity complex in ways in which the identities of other participants were not, as we shall see in the next two chapters.

The Athenian Cavalry In addition to the general male Athenian identity which we have been discussing, there were also two other, more specialised identities for male citizens, those of the Athenian cavalry and of Athenian benefactors of the city, which we shall discuss in the next two sections. Within the overall body of the male citizens, members of the cavalry constituted a distinct and specialised subgroup. In all periods, they must have been set apart not only by their horses, but also by their youthfulness: our evidence suggests that the corps would always have been dominated by young men in their twenties and early thirties.42 Consequently, they would have been immediately identifiable both by Athenians and by visitors. In the course of the festival, the cavalry had two main roles: to take part in the procession and to compete in the competitions for cavalry in the games. Doing so allowed them to construct identities as members of ‘all the Athenians’ who were prepared to fight on behalf of the city. In contrast to the general male Athenian identities which we have been discussing, the members of the cavalry did not function as servants of the goddess. In this sense, their identities were the continuation of their earlier identities as Athenian boys, beardless youths and ephebes, which we shall discuss in the following chapter. 41

42

Arist. Ath. Pol. 63.3; cf. Arist. Ath. Pol. 4.3, 30.2, 31.1; Xen. Mem. 1.2.35; Dem. 22 hyp. 1.1; Rhodes 1981: 116, 389 90, 510, 703. Bugh 1988: 32 3, 62 5.

229

230

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

Already in the archaic period, Athens seems to have had a very small cavalry force of just under one hundred members.43 Since the cup in the Niarchos Collection shows a single cavalryman at the end of the procession (Fig. 4.5), we know that at least some members of the force were formally going to the Akropolis in the years soon after the reorganisation of the festival. When they did so, they signalled their willingness to fight on behalf of the city, a role which only fully adult men could perform; consequently, their actions also allowed them to display their masculinity. Since cavalry service required significant wealth, cavalrymen must have come from families of the highest socio-economic statuses in the city, and their presence contributed to the over-representation of these groups throughout the celebration at this time. Under the tyrannies of Peisistratos and his sons, an individual cavalryman’s participation in the festival signalled at least his acquiescence to their political control, as was the case with the general male Athenian identity. When the Kleisthenic system was instituted, the rich and elite young members of the cavalry, like all other Athenian males, were reconfigured into supporters of the new system who now served the demos. Nevertheless, the events of 508/7 do not seem to have been as momentous for the cavalry as they were in other areas of the city’s life, although presumably the force was now tribally organised. For the force, bigger changes apparently took place in the middle of the fifth century, when its size was raised first to 300 and then to 1,000 cavalrymen.44 As Glen Bugh has argued, the first increase seems to have been made in the aftermath of the battle of Tanagra in 458/7, while, by the start of the Peloponnesian War in 431, the cavalry certainly numbered 1,000 men, the level at which it would remain for the rest of the classical period.45 The second enlargement may have come in the aftermath of King Pleistoanax’s invasion of Eleusis and the Thriasian plain in 446.46 These expanded numbers made it possible to divide the cavalry into ten tribal contingents, which were of appropriate size for the anthippasia; for this reason, it seems likely that the contest was instituted as part of these reforms, perhaps in the 450s.47 Including the anthippasia on the programme provided the cavalrymen with their own competition in the games and a second opportunity to show their willingness to fight for the 43 44 45

46

Bugh 1988: 3 38 with further references; Spence 1993: 9 12. Bugh 1988: 39 52, 74 8 with further references; cf. Spence 1993: 12 16. Three hundred cavalrymen: Andok. 3.5; Tanagra: above Chapter 5 note 116. In 431: Thuc. 2.13.8; Ar. Knights 225 6; Andok. 3.7; Philoch. FGrHist 328 F39. If the 200 mounted archers are included, then the total was 1,200. Invasion: Thuc. 1.114.1 2, 2.21.1. 47 Above Chapter 5.

The Athenian Cavalry

democratic city and to emphasise their masculinity. Since they did not have an identity as servants of the goddess, the identity which they created at the Great Panathenaia mapped well on to a very political definition of what it meant to be an Athenian citizen, albeit one from the wealthiest and highest social strata of the city. This identity, in turn, set up a model for these young men of how the good cavalryman ought to behave and how he should create identities. Due to their high socio-economic position in Athenian society, the cavalrymen were more likely than ordinary Athenians to support oligarchy, and they were particularly active in support of the Thirty in 404/3.48 In the aftermath of the oligarchies of 411, the festival of 410 provided the cavalrymen with an important opportunity to show that they really were supporters of the demos and eager to fight on its behalf. As with other Athenian men, they could now remake themselves into proper democrats irrespective of their actions in 411. After the Thirty, at the Panathenaia of 402, the cavalry’s participation showed that they were reconciled with the rest of the Athenians, including the men of the Peiraieus who had certainly not supported the Thirty. It also gave them an opportunity to show their willingness to fight on behalf of the democratic city and so to reconfigure themselves into democrats, instead of supporters of oligarchy, for whom there was no space at the Panathenaia. As the attacks against the cavalry in the early fourth century show,49 this process had to be undertaken repeatedly over a series of penteteric celebrations. Since the Panathenaia had such close connections with democracy, celebrating victories in the anthippasia was another way for cavalrymen, such as the victorious men of Leontis, to demonstrate their commitment to the rule of the demos (Table 5.16). When this contingent commemorated its victory with a stone monument set up in the city, the structure made both their success and their commitment to the demos perpetually visible to all viewers, hence the beginning of a series of such monuments in about 390 (Table 5.16).50 As the years passed, the current cavalrymen became too young to have taken part in the oligarchies at the end of the fifth century, and thus they no longer needed to remake themselves into good democrats. Nevertheless, the Great Panathenaia offered them the opportunity to continue to create identities as (rich and socially well-placed) democrats who were willing to 48

49

50

Cavalry and Thirty: Xen. Hell. 2.3.48, 2.4.2 10, 24 6, 31 2, 3.1.4; Arist. Ath. Pol. 38.2; Bugh 1988: 120 9; Spence 1993: 216 17. As is visible in Lys. 14 16, 26.10; Bugh 1988: 129 43; Spence 1993: 217 24; Low 2002: 102 17; Blanshard 2010: 214 18. Monument: Shear, Jr 1971: pl. 57.c; Shear 2003a: 171 fig. 1.

231

232

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

fight on behalf of the city. By the 380s, when the prize list records a special set of events ‘for warriors’, they had additional opportunities both to compete and so also to create further identities as individual cavalrymen. These various identity processes presumably continued to take place through the festival of 322. As with the general male Athenian identity, the identities of the cavalry must also have been similarly affected by the political shifts in the Hellenistic period, as we saw in discussing Glaukon of Aithalidai earlier. In addition, the size of the force was also reduced at some point, because, in 282/1, the cavalry praised the hipparchoi and phylarchoi for increasing the number of men from 200 to 300; it apparently did not stay at this level, but it also does not seem to have fallen significantly below 200.51 As we saw in discussing the tribal team contests, the anthippasia is not attested after the Great Panathenaia of probably 290. With its demise, the cavalry lost an important opportunity to create identities and to show their willingness to fight on behalf of the city. Now, their opportunities were limited to the procession and individual contests in the games. In 178 bc, when a new set of races for the cavalry was added to the hippic programme in the games (Table 5.14), they created an important new opportunity for the members to create identities and to show their willingness to fight on behalf of the city. As we saw in Chapter 5, by 170, the contests had been expanded into two divisions, one for the phylarchoi and one for the rest of the cavalrymen respectively (Table 5.14). Since all these competitions were for individuals, when a man such as Diokles, the son of Charinos, in 178 or Patron, the son of Archelaos, in 170 won their events (Table 5.12), the identities which they created were individual ones as a successful cavalryman of high socio-economic status, rather than those of the force as a whole.52 Any identity-making at the level of the group was done for the tribe, as we shall discuss below. In contrast, when the cavalry took part in the procession, the focus at that moment was not on Diokles or Patron as individuals, but on the entire group and its corporate identity as a unit prepared to fight for the democratic city. Both occasions emphasised that young men from the city’s richest and most socially elite families were still prepared to support the rule of the demos and to serve the city. The cavalry continued to exist through Sulla’s destruction of the city in 86 bc, but this defeat does not seem to have marked its end.53 In view of the demise of the hippic games about 31 bc, as we saw in Chapter 5, it seems 51

52 53

Situation in 282/1: above Chapter 5 note 118. For the size in the Hellenistic period, see Bugh 1988: 186 91. On these men, see Tracy and Habicht 1991: 210 (Patron), 227 (Diokles). Above Chapter 5 note 129.

The Athenian Cavalry

unlikely that the cavalry survived much beyond this date. When the Athenian cavalry ceased to exist, the young elite men of the city lost their opportunities to create identities for themselves, to show their readiness to fight for the city and to demonstrate their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’. Since such opportunities had existed in some form from 566 onwards, their demise marked an important development in the politics of identity at the festival, one paralleled in the changes to the general Athenian male identity, as we saw earlier. In this way, the festival and its processes of showing what it meant to be Athenian were updated to reflect the realities of the new peace imposed by Rome. The special roles allocated to the cavalry at the Panathenaia both in the procession and later in the games provided opportunities for young men from the city’s wealthiest families of highest social status to participate in the occasion and to create identities. Since the members were predominately young men in their twenties and early thirties, many of them would not have been eligible for public office. Their only opportunities for taking part in the festival, consequently, were as members of the city’s military forces, a quintessentially masculine role. Since the cavalry existed as a separate force within the Athenian military, the horsemen were the focus of attention in ways that their contemporaries among the hoplites were not. After the institution of the Kleisthenic system, this difference emphasised these elite young men’s service to the demos, despite their high socio-economic status, while their participation also made them members of the corporate body of ‘all the Athenians’. This sense of the special nature of the cavalry must have increased when the anthippasia contest was established, probably as part of the reforms in the later 450s. Preparing for the competitions, taking part in them and riding in the procession will all have played a role in creating cohesion in the newly enlarged force,54 as well have providing multiple opportunities for the members to emphasise their status as men. When the games began to include individual events for the cavalry, they allowed the cavalrymen to create identities not only as members of the force, but also as individual young men from wealthy and socially important families. The organisation of the procession and the events in the games facilitated comparison and contrast both between the cavalry and other groups and within the force at the level of the tribes and different individuals. The cavalry identity contrasts with the ideal Athenian male identity, because it is considerably less complex, and it focuses only on the young men’s service to the city. Since this identity also assumes wealth 54

Compare Bugh 1988: 80 1.

233

234

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

and high social status on the part of all cavalrymen, it contrasts with the identities of their hoplite contemporaries, who were less wealthy and from a wider range of social statuses. Unlike mature Athenian males, the cavalrymen did not have the opportunity to create identities as servants of the goddess. Their identity, consequently, maps well on to a very political understanding of what it meant to be Athenian, and it contrasts with the overall male Athenian identity, which involved service both to the city and to the goddess, as well as men from a wider range socio-economic strata.

Athenian Benefactors of the City A second distinct subgroup of all male citizens were the Athenian benefactors of the city, who were rewarded with gold crowns announced according to the law at the athletic games of the Panathenaia, as we know from their inscribed honorary decrees (Table 6.1).55 The law also specified announcements at other celebrations, most especially at the new tragedies of the City Dionysia, and, after 224/3, crowns were further proclaimed at the athletic events of the Eleusinia and the Ptolemaia. In the period before about 229 bc, crowns which were to be announced at the athletic games of the Great Panathenaia were only voted in years immediately preceding the celebration of the penteteric festivities, as, for example, with the crown for Phaidros of Sphettos (Table 6.1). If awards were made in another year, then the announcement at Athena’s festival was omitted, as, for example, with the crown for Phaidros’ brother Kallias of Sphettos.56 After about 229, the situation changed, and crowns to be announced at the Great Panathenaia could now apparently be voted in any year; if the festivities were not imminent, then the announcement of the award was held back until the next penteteric celebration. Not all individuals rewarded by the city received gold crowns, nor were all gold crowns announced at the Great Panathenaia or other festivals.57 The men so honoured, consequently, represented particularly worthy benefactors of the city who were rewarded in the international setting of the penteteric celebration. This process created particular identities for the recipients which corresponded to 55

56 57

Since our evidence for this practice is purely epigraphical, it may have been more common than the extant inscribed honours suggest. SEG XXVIII 60.91 4 IG II3.1 911.91 4. Olive crowns: e.g. IG II2 641.21 3 IG II3.1 844.21 3; 665.29 30 IG II3.1 917.29 30; SEG LIII 120.10 11 IG II3.1 899.10 11; Agora XVI 188.45 IG II3.1 908.46; unannounced gold crowns: e.g. IG II3.1 416.21 2, 34; 469.26 7; Agora XV 78.14 IG II3.1 900.14; Agora XVI 181.29, 35 6 IG II3.1 881.27, 35 6; Henry 1983: 22 42.

Athenian Benefactors of the City

their status either as recipients of megistai timai, the highest honours which the city could bestow,58 or as especially commendable officials of the city. Both groups of men were held up as worthy of emulation, so that their honours created expectations of what it meant to be a benefactor of the city, but the identities created were not identical: the officials had connections with the goddess which were absent from the identities of the men awarded highest honours. For three of the known Athenians awarded gold crowns announced at the Great Panathenaia, this crown was part of a larger package of honours which constituted the megistai timai of the city (Table 6.1).59 Since the decrees prescribe simply that the honorands are to be praised for their excellence (ἀρετή) and their good will towards the demos and the crowns are to be announced at the specified festival(s), it seems unlikely that the entire honorary decree was read out at the celebration as part of the announcement process. Instead, the honorand’s deeds were described in rather vague and anodyne terms which masked exactly what he had done to be worthy of such honours . . . at least for visitors.60 For Athenians, this announcement would have been the culmination of a long process in which the worthiness of the honorand was demonstrated, normally both to the boule and to the demos, and his deeds were presented and discussed.61 At the games, they would have been well aware why these men were being rewarded and what they had done; if the statues with their accompanying decrees had already been erected,62 then they could also have consulted the inscribed document. Consequently, they would have known that the crowns were awarded for superior service to the city over the course of a man’s career and in a variety of different spheres. Fighting for the city and ensuring that the city was adequately supplied with grain were particular areas of concern, and the honorands were inevitably mature citizens who were politically

58 59

60 61 62

Gauthier 1985: 27, 79 82. The rest of the package included a bronze statue, usually in the Agora, together with sitesis in the prytaneion and front row seats at all the games for the honorand and the oldest of his descendants; IG II2 657.60 6 IG II3.1 877.60 6; 682.72 84 IG II3.1 985.72 84; SEG XXVIII 60.91 8 IG II3.1 911.91 8; XLV 101.40 8 IG II3.1 857.40 8; IG II3.1 1292.46 55; above note 58. Compare Shear 2011: 141 6, 150 1. On the process, see M. J. Osborne 2012a: 71 4; Gauthier 1985: 83 9; Shear 2020: 286 7. Inscribed decrees and the statues which they authorise were frequently set up as composite monuments; see e.g. IG II2 682.87 9 IG II3.1 985.87 9; SEG XXVIII 60.105 7 IG II3.1 911.105 7; XLV 101.48 50 IG II3.1 857.48 50; G. Oliver 2007a: 195, 196; Ma 2013: 59, 120; Shear 2017: 166 note 24.

235

236

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

prominent and often of higher socio-economic status.63 When the announcement was made, a recipient, like Phaidros of Sphettos, was identified as a man who had regularly acted particularly zealously on behalf of the city and ensured her very basic survival (Table 6.1); if his actions had been martial, then he was also constructed as a fighter for Athens. At this moment, the focus was only on his services to the city, and his relationship with the goddess was not involved. His service will have been further defined by the nature of the regime when the honours were awarded. If the city was under democratic rule, then there will have been further emphasis on his service to the demos and his role as a (zealous) democrat, as is made particularly clear by the awards of megistai timai voted after the revolution in 286, although none of them included crowns announced at the Great Panathenaia.64 The second group of Athenian benefactors were officials of the city and thus over the age of thirty, as well as politically active. The earliest such recipient seems to be Herakleitos, the son of Asklepiades, of Athmonon whose honours belong in the 250s, soon after the end of the Chremonidean War (Table 6.1).65 Since the preserved text focuses on his actions at the Great Panathenaia and does not award him highest honours, it seems most likely that he was being rewarded for his actions as agonothetes of Athena’s festival.66 His service to the goddess made it particularly appropriate to reward him at the Great Panathenaia, and the announcement should have taken place four years after he was agonothetes, most likely in 254.67 In the second century, honours for further officials of the city are attested (Table 6.1) with a particular concentration on the agonothetai of the Theseia, such as Miltiades, the son of Zoilos, of Marathon,68 and the 63

64 65 66

67

68

Areas of concern: e.g. IG II2 657.11 14, 33 6 IG II3.1 877.11 14, 33 6; IG II3.1 1292.12 15, 22 4; SEG XXVIII 60.11 40 IG II3.1 911.11 40; cf. IG II3.1 1135.12 17; Gauthier 1985: 104 7; G. Oliver 2007c: 162 3; above Chapter 4 note 170. [Plut.] X orat. 850f 851c, 851d f; IG II2 657 IG II3.1 877; SEG XXVIII 60 IG II3.1 911. For previous discussions of the date, see above Chapter 4 note 167. Herakleitos as agonothetes: Kontoleon 1964: 196 7; Nachtergael 1977: 180; cf. Dinsmoor 1931: 175 note 1; see also below Appendix 6. That Herakleitos had to repair or perhaps prepare (κατ[ασκευάζει]) the stadium should indicate that his actions took place very soon after the end of the Chremonidean War, when the facility was presumably damaged. Since festivals were only cancelled under dire circumstances, the Great Panathenaia in question is most likely the celebration of 258, rather than later in the decade, when work would no longer have been needed on the stadium; cancellation: Shear 2010: 141 7. As agonothetai of the Theseia, Leon, the son of Kichesias, of Aixone and the now nameless son of [Lysa]ndros, of Peiraieus presumably also received crowns announced at the Great Panathenaia, but the relevant clauses are not preserved in their honorary inscriptions; IG II2 960.1 6; 961.3 4 with Sarrazanas 2013.

Athenian Benefactors of the City

kosmetai or commanding officers of the ephebes, such as Chremes of Myrrhinoutta (Table 6.1). In these cases, the honorand was presented as active on behalf of the city. Since these men were all honoured for holding official positions, it seems possible that their office may have been included as part of the announcement. If this suggestion is correct, then the proclamation would have emphasised the importance of service to the demos and the city, while it would also have brought out their status as politically active individuals. For men like the hipparchos honoured at the celebration of 186 and kosmetai such as Chremes, their announcements would have brought out their military service to the city. In contrast, the honours for Herakleitos would also have emphasised his actions on behalf of Athena as the agonothetes of her festival. The rewards for the agonothetai of the Theseia made visible these men’s service to a hero who was closely connected with the Panathenaia, as we saw in Chapter 2, and it presented them as this hero’s servants, as well as individuals particularly active more generally in the city’s religious life.69 The honours for all the agonothetai also brought out the men’s wealth, which had led to the successful completion of the office and subsequently the honours. Although both the recipients of megistai timai and the officials were presented as particularly zealous in their service of the city and politically active and, as Athenian citizens, they were certainly all members of ‘all the Athenians’, their identities were the same only in their focus on mature, politically active citizens over the age of thirty; otherwise, they differed significantly. The services of the men honoured with megistai timai were the greatest which could be expected of any benefactor, and they had particularly focused on the preservation of the city, whether by fighting on her behalf or through some other means, such as assuring an adequate supply of grain, over a long period of time. Consequently, these men were marked out as particularly worthy of emulation by other members of the community, and this identity was repeated by the composite monument of their bronze statue and honorary inscription.70 This identity was closely linked to the city (and its current political regime), and it was not focused on the goddess, so that these men were not constructed as serving her in their capacity as benefactors. In contrast, the officials of the city were honoured for their particular services while in office during a specific year. Although they were exemplary in this capacity, they were not as worthy of 69

70

Since only the agonothetai of the Theseia are known to have had their honours announced at the Great Panathenaia, it seems more plausible to connect their honours with Theseus as founder of the festival rather than to suppose that agonothetai of various celebrations were so rewarded. Shear 2011: 278 80; Shear 2012a: 291 2; Shear 2017: 166 7, 176 82.

237

238

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

honours as the recipients of megistai timai, and they were not also commemorated by bronze statues. If their office was a military one, then their identity was as a fighter for the city, and there was no connection with the goddess. The known agonothetai, in contrast, were shown as serving both the city and either the goddess or one of the heroes closely associated with the festival, while their office marked them as men of some wealth. The identities created by their honours were, therefore, more complex than those of the men receiving highest honours and more closely linked to the overall purpose of the celebration. Unlike the other identities which we have discussed so far, only very small numbers of men at any one festival ever had them, and they really operated at the level of the politically active individual rather than of a subgroup of the city. The parameters within which the benefactors’ identities were constructed were also chosen by the city, rather than by the men honoured. They either conformed and accepted their honours and identities, which then became normative for such individuals and subject to emulation, or they refused and did not participate in the festival.

Subgroups of the City So far, we have focused on male Athenians as a single group with a rather complex identity or on selected special parts of the overall citizen body in the form of the cavalry and the benefactors of the city. Only some Athenian men could belong to either of these latter two groups, and so they were relevant for the identities of a limited number of men, who were also usually wealthy. For the benefactors, their honours added to their overall identity as a citizen of Athens, but they were not central elements of that identity. In contrast, for many members of the cavalry, this service provided their only opportunity for participation and identity formation at the Panathenaia, because most of them were too young to hold public office. Athenian men also had identities as members of subgroups of the city, of gene, demes and tribes. Unlike the general male identity, they did not necessarily focus primarily on men over the age of thirty. Once the Kleisthenic system was introduced in 508/7, all men had identities both as Athenians and as members of their particular demes and tribes. These identities, along with those of the gene, were not salient throughout the festival; instead, they were concentrated particularly in the procession and the sacrifices, so that being a member of one of these subgroups produced a different identity than being a male Athenian citizen, because the crucial

Subgroups of the City

point of comparison was with other such subgroups, rather than with foreign visitors. Since the games provided an additional venue for demonstrating tribal affiliation, and so identity, what it meant to be a member of a tribe was more complex than being a member of the other subgroups. Through the emphasis on the martial aspect of the contests, the identities created were closer to those of the Athenian male citizen. As we saw in discussing the sacrifices at both the Little Panathenaia and the Great Panathenaia, the genos of the Salaminioi certainly provided a pig for Athena (Table 4.10), and it was very likely not the only genos to offer its own animal to the goddess.71 In this way, gene could create and maintain reciprocal relationships with the divinity. When the members of the genos escorted their sacrificial victim in the procession and when it was then presented to the goddess, the focus was on the men’s role as members of the genos and not as male Athenians; the same dynamics were also in play when the meat was divided up among the gennetai, or members of the genos. Being a member of this group, consequently, involved the creation of a special relationship with Athena and marked men as her servants through their gift to her. Since membership in the gene was not open to all inhabitants and was a hereditary privilege of selected individuals, these sacrifices also served to display the members as a subgroup of the city and their inclusion in the larger community of ‘all the Athenians’. Since the gene represented the top social, political and probably economic strata of the city in the sixth century before 508/7, any sacrifices at the level of the group would have set them apart from the rest of the overall community and marked them out as special.72 When men such as Hippokleides, who was a member of the genos Philaidai, or Harmodios and Aristogeiton initially, who were members of the Gephyraioi, participated in the festival generally, their actions could also reflect back on their gene and so create a secondary identity as a member of this subgroup for the men involved.73 At this time the presence of the gene as an identifiable subgroup of the city contributed to the ways in which the city’s more elite social and economic classes dominated the festival. With the invention of the Kleisthenic system in 508/7 and the connection of the festival to the rule of the demos through the institution of the 71

72 73

Above Chapters 3 and 4. If the deme and tribe sacrifices were modelled on those of the gene, as suggested in Chapter 4, then many of these sub groups must have been making such offerings to Athena in the period before 508/7. On the gene in the sixth century, see helpfully Parker 1996: 59 66 with further references. Hippokleides: Pherekyd. FGrHist 3 F2 and Hellanik. FGrHist 4 F22, quoted by Marcellin. Vit. Thuc. 3 4; Harmodios and Aristogeiton: Hdt. 5.55, 57.1; on the two gene, see Parker 1996: 288 9, 316 17.

239

240

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

Tyrannicides’ cult, the position of the gene became more complicated. Certainly, at the time of the procession and sacrifices, their members were now visibly incorporated in the isonomic and democratic system, so that they were shown to be in service to the city. At the same time, membership in a genos separated them from many other citizens who did not belong to such a group. Thus, the gennetai could continue to consider themselves different (and better) than other, less privileged Athenians, a status which would have been most obvious when the meat from their offerings was distributed only to them. By the fourth century, membership in a genos did not necessarily correlate with economic wealth, as the case of Euxitheos, who was poor, but a member of an unnamed genos, makes clear; the social status conferred on members, however, remained.74 When the city was firmly under democratic control, as, for example, in the 360s, the higher social statuses of the gennetai may have been a less important part of their identities as members of these groups, while periods of oligarchic control or other instability probably increased its importance. In the aftermath of such periods, such as at the end of the fifth century, the reincorporation of these groups into the overall body of the (democratic) Athenians most likely was particularly important. These sacrifices served not only to distinguish between the members of gene and other Athenians, but they also made distinctions between different gene possible, because not all such groups may have given Athena a pig as the Salaminioi did. If different groups sacrificed a variety of victims to the goddess, as seems likely, then these distinctions would have separated one genos from another, so that each one had its own specific identity: we are the men who offer an X (animal) to Athena. With the introduction of the Kleisthenic system in 508/7, the citizen body was reorganised into new subdivisions of demes and tribes to which every adult male citizen belonged. All the tribes and probably many demes were sending sacrificial animals to be offered to Athena in the fifth and fourth centuries (Table 4.10), as we saw in Chapter 4. Like the sacrifices by the gene, these offerings created and maintained reciprocal relations between the individual group and the goddess. Escorting the animals in the procession, sacrificing them and dividing the meat focused on the men’s roles not as citizens of Athens, but as members of their particular deme and/or tribe. These dynamics were exactly parallel to those of the 74

Euxitheos: Dem. 57.22 5, 28, 30 1, 35 6, 40, 42, 44 5, 52, 67. Note that, in the late fifth century, Thucydides describes Aristogeiton, a member of the Gephyraioi, as a ‘middling citizen’; Thuc. 6.54.2: ἀνὴρ τῶν ἀστῶν, μέσος πολίτης. For the gene in the fourth century, see helpfully Parker 1996: 56 9.

Subgroups of the City

gene, which were probably the inspiration for the offerings of the new demes and tribes after 508/7; at that time, the tribal sacrifices ensured that all Athenians now could participate in the feasts which had previously been limited to members of the gene. Involvement at the level of the deme and the tribe also closely connected a man with the new isonomic and democratic system and marked him out as a supporter of the demos; he was not (necessarily) a member of the highest social and economic strata, and he was certainly prepared to serve the city. Since the Athenian military forces were also organised by tribe and by deme, these new subgroups would have been visible more than once in the procession. This presentation of the military contingents brought out the willingness of demesmen and tribesmen to fight for the city, so that their identity as members of these units took on some of the elements of the overall male Athenian identity, and it added to their display of their masculinity. If the thallophoroi were organised by tribe and by deme, then participating in this way also allowed members of the groups to serve the goddess directly. Certainly, the demarchoi, whom we discussed earlier, did so, but their actions also marked them out as members of their demes. When all these men took part in the procession, it made their membership in these new subgroups particularly visible and thus brought out the importance of being part of a deme and a tribe. In terms of the stress on the democratic nature of these groups, it seems likely that it mirrored the situation with the general male Athenian identity. Accordingly, it ought to have been particularly strong after the oligarchies at the end of the fifth century. If these offerings continued into the Hellenistic period, as seems likely, the democratic aspects of deme and tribe identities ought to have been more salient when the city was under the rule of the demos and less salient when she was under a non-democratic regime. As we saw in Chapter 4, the meat from the various deme sacrifices was treated differently: for some demes, such as Skambonidai, the meat was distributed to the members, while, for other demes, such as Thorikos, the meat was not distributed and was sold. These different treatments served to distinguish one group from another and to invite comparisons between them. If, as seems likely, various demes were bringing a variety of animals to offer to the goddess, then these distinctions would not have been limited to the distribution of the sacrificial meat, and they would have been visible in the procession: we, as men of Thorikos, bring a sheep to Athena, but the men of such and such a deme bring (only) a pig/a sheep which is not as nice as ours. These distinctions probably also played out at the level of the tribe in competitions over which cow was the best, the most beautiful, etc. After

241

242

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

the sacrifices, the meat was used for feasts for the individual tribes, affairs which much have been held in various locations around the city. Where a man such as Demosthenes went for his feast, consequently, marked out his membership in his particular tribe and allowed further distinctions to be made between different tribes. As he ate his feast, a tribesman’s identity as a member of this group was most salient. For the hestiatores like Demosthenes, providing the feast not only linked him particularly closely with the tribe and the democratic city, but it also gave him the opportunity to create an individual identity which emphasised his economic standing and his generosity, which he did not later hesitate to relive in court.75 While the visibility of the demes was particularly connected with the procession and the sacrifices, the tribes were not limited to this part of the festival, because one section of the games was reserved for Athenians representing their tribes. Since the apobatic competition and the pyrrhiche appear to have been held already in the sixth century, tribal contests must have been part of the programme already in 506 and 502, the first two penteteric festivals after the institution of the Kleisthenic system. In terms of identity formation, these two events were particularly useful: the armour suggested that the contestants were prepared to fight for the city, while taking part in the competitions allowed participants to demonstrate their close connections with Athena, who was understood to have invented them, as we saw in Chapter 2. In the case of the apobatic race, men such as [K]rat[e]s, whom we discussed earlier, also displayed their association with Erichthonios. Since every competition by its very nature involved the identification of a winner, the distinctions between different tribes were immediately visible in a context which encouraged comparison: we can easily imagine the bragging of the men of Hippothontis when [K]rat[e]s won the apobatic race! This setting kept the focus on tribal identities despite the ways in which they overlapped with the overall male Athenian identity. In the years after 508/7, the changes to these competitions linked them closely with the new system and identified participants as supporters of the new political order and the rule of the demos irrespective of their actual position in Athenian society. In this way, men from the top social and economic strata, who must have dominated these contests, could be incorporated in the newly democratic city. Subsequently, these connections could be very useful, as we saw with the speaker of Lysias 21. Since military aspects were a principal element of the tribal competitions for both individuals and teams throughout their history, participation will 75

Demosthenes: see above Chapter 4 note 117.

Subgroups of the City

always have allowed a man such as [K]rat[e]s to create an identity as a tribesman willing to fight on behalf of the city; in this way, he also had an opportunity to display his masculinity. This military identity must have been particularly strong for the cavalry teams in the anthippasia, like that of Leontis, because it mapped on to another aspect of their identities, as we discussed earlier. Sponsoring a team in the pyrrhiche also created this identity for the choregos, as we saw with the speaker of Lysias 21. Although the elite must have dominated the tribal events at the very end of the sixth century, the social standing of participants must have become more diverse over time. In the 420s, Pheidippides represents an individual who, despite his pretentions, was not part of the highest socio-economic strata. By the 380s, the team events provided opportunities for men from various economic and social positions to represent their tribes, as we saw in Chapter 5. Since these men competed in their own persons, these tribal contests also opened up space for younger men, such as Pheidippides, to take part and to create identities, opportunities which they may not otherwise have had. These shifts in participation may well have been understood at the time as the co-option of elite practices by the demos for its own ends, a pattern which we have now seen across the festival. With the demise of the tribal team competitions in the early third century, participation by Athenians from a wide range of social and economic circumstances also inevitably decreased significantly. Since the individual tribal events seem to have continued, there were still opportunities in the games for men to create tribal identities, but they were restricted to men who could afford the time to practise and had the money for the horses and other necessary equipment, that is to economically better-off members of the tribe, such as the cousins Eurykleides, the son of Mikion, and Mikion, the son of Eurykleides, who collectively won three tribal races on the Panathenaic Way in 182 and 178 (Table 5.12).76 The continuation of the apobatic race and other militarily flavoured events in the second century meant that the basic tribal identities which were created through participation did not change significantly in the Hellenistic period, and the format continued to encourage comparison and contrast,77 but now the 76

77

If these dynamics are correctly identified here, then perhaps the demise of the tribal team events took place under one of the oligarchic regimes in the period between 322 and 286 and was motivated as much by ideology as by expense, the primary factor suggested in Chapter 5. Although the multiple races for the synoris in the hippodrome in 170 and 166 would not have resulted in a single man and tribe being identified as clearly superior (Table 5.13). Conversely, we can imagine the bragging by the tribesmen of Oineis as members of their cavalry contingent won the hippeis’ diaulos for the horse in the years 170, 166, 162, 158 and either 150 or 146 bc (Table 5.12)!

243

244

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

only way to demonstrate a close connection with Athena at the level of the tribe was through the apobatic race. When all such contests were removed from the programme, as seems to have happened by the late first century bc, the changes affected not only the games, but also the processes of identity creation. Now, the games ceased to be an occasion when men could create tribal identities, display their close relationship with Athena and Erichthonios and demonstrate their willingness as men to fight for the city. They also no longer provided an opportunity to compare different tribes (and tribesmen) with one another. At this time, any creation of tribal identity could have been done only in the procession and at the sacrifices and only as long as the tribes continued to offer their own special victims to the goddess. When these offerings ceased to be made, then all opportunities for creating tribal identities must also have come to an end. Since they were closely tied to sacrifices, deme and genos identities ought to have followed a parallel trajectory. The identities of members of gene, demes and tribes, consequently, were closely linked to the sacrifices made by these groups, and thus they were only salient at the time of the procession and the giving of the offerings to the goddess. These processes concentrated on the differences between individual subgroups, rather than on what united them all together, so that comparisons were an inevitable outcome, and they allowed distinctions to be made between, for example, the men of Skambonidai and the men of Thorikos. In contrast to the options for demes and gene, the games provided another occasion for creating tribal identities, and they also allowed more younger men to participate in these processes; issues of age are involved here, as they are not with the identities linked to the sacrifices. In addition, the tribal competitions automatically entailed comparison between different men and their tribes. These subgroup identities, consequently, did not look beyond male Athenians and the boundaries of the city. In this way, they were not very different from the identities which members of these subgroups created at the Little Panathenaia. For the tribes, there would have been more emphasis on members’ willingness to fight for the city, because the games included a larger number of martial competitions; in these contests, issues of masculinity were also at stake. Consequently, the tribal identities were closer to the overall male Athenian identity at the Great Panathenaia than were those of the gene and the demes. Since they were created at different points in the festival, they were also more complex. Nevertheless, there are clear links between the processes for creating identity at the level of the gene and at the levels of the demes and tribes.

Athenian Male Identities and the Festival

These parallels suggest that the inspiration for the roles assigned to demes and tribes after 508/7 came from the gene and their sacrifices, so that they represent the co-option of these existing (elite) practices by the demos. If this suggestion is correct, then there are further implications for understanding the history of the restricted contests before 508/7: they may well have been limited to members of the gene who specifically represented their subgroups.78 Certainly such men had the necessary financial resources which these events required. These putative changes and co-options would have caused significant modifications in the festival and visibly made it closely connected with the new political system, a link also made at this time by the institution of the cult for the Tyrannicides. For us, therefore, understanding the politics of identities at the Great Panathenaia also helps us to understand the festival’s development and history.

Athenian Male Identities and the Festival As this discussion has brought out, the identities of Athenian males were complex, and they involved a number of different elements, not all of which were salient at any given moment. After 508/7 bc, all men also had identities as members of demes and tribes; the importance of demonstrating membership in these subgroups probably continued until at least the end of the Hellenistic period. Over the course of the Great Panathenaia, consequently, all Athenian men created a variety of identities by fulfilling (several) different roles which also all served to construct their masculinity. In turn, these roles and identities created expectations, so that to be an Athenian male was to perform one or more of these positions. Although men had multiple identities, only one or perhaps two in combination were salient at any one time. In the procession, for example, men filled a particular role: as a hoplite or cavalryman, as a man escorting the sacrificial animal of a subgroup, as an official of the city, as an official of the goddess, or as thallophoros. In some cases, the identity created may have had a secondary aspect: men in military units, who were prepared to fight for the city, were also organised by tribe and by deme, and so represented these subgroups. Their subgroup identity, however, would not have been as salient as it was for men escorting sacrifices from their tribe or deme (or genos). Serving the goddess was a dominant part of the identities of the 78

Otherwise, we must imagine the (shadowy) Solonian tribes in such a role, but none of our evidence connects them with the Panathenaia in any way.

245

246

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

officials of the goddess, such as Perikles and Miltiades, the son of Zoilos, who also served the city, and the thallophoroi; if the latter were organised by tribe and by deme, then they also created secondary subgroup identities. In some cases, the salient feature of an identity may have picked up on another role and identity elsewhere in the festival: as members of tribes, or as warriors in the games or as members of subgroups when the sacrificial meat was distributed. Consequently, in order to create the complex overall Athenian male identity, a man had to participate repeatedly in different roles. Doing so made different aspects of the overall identity visible, so that, over the course of the festival, they could be incorporated into a man’s general identity. Since each man participated in his own way, there will have been variation between individual men’s specific identities, and different elements will have been particularly salient for each of them. Socioeconomic statuses and age will also have been in play, because older men higher up in society had more opportunities than younger men and/or those with few economic and social resources. These identities, however, were all variations on being a male Athenian, so that the ideal overall identity gave them a sense of homogeneity and of belonging to the group. Since the different parts of a man’s identity were salient at various points of the festival, the Athenian male identity was not fixed, but fluid. Indeed, at some points it disappeared entirely, because the focus was elsewhere, particularly on the city’s subgroups. In the procession, men had specific roles, and so created identities which might emphasise their membership in a subgroup or their service to the city or to Athena. When the sacrificial victims were brought up to the altar and the peplos was given to the goddess, however, the men’s identity shifted and became focused on them as Athenians and as part of the group of ‘all the Athenians’ at the most inclusive moment of the Great Panathenaia. In contrast, when the animals from the city’s subgroups were brought up, membership in these groups became dominant, and the focus on Athenians as a whole disappeared. These shifts continued when the meat from the different sacrifices was distributed. In the games, men’s identities remained fluid: any man participating in the open contests would have done so as an Athenian, as Alkmeonides did, while, in the restricted tribal contests, he participated as a member of his tribe rather than as an Athenian, as Glaukon of Aithalidai had. Men whose primary role in the procession was as officials of the city, such as the archons, might well not have had any role in the games except as spectator. In contrast, when rewards for Athenian benefactors were announced at the athletic events, the focus was on what it meant to be Athenian, and other identities slid out of view. Men’s identities, consequently, moved between moments which were

Athenian Male Identities and the Festival

more focused on the subgroups and specific roles within the city, when being Athenian was not important, and points which were more focused on Athenianness. In some of the former situations, Athenian identity could disappear, as, for example, when subgroup identities were very dominant. It seems likely also that, at the pannychis, about which we know very little, Athenian male identity was not important. Fluidity between identities also occurred in contexts which might seem monolithic, as the tribal contests make clear. In the apobatic contest and the pyrrhiche, men created identities which did not focus just on their tribal affiliations; rather, by participating in these competitions, they also demonstrated their close links to Athena and, in the case of the race, Erichthonios. Here, there is a further comparison with metics, nonAthenians and Athenian females, if present, who did not participate, and so did not display these particular connections. In contrast, other tribal contests, both for individuals and for teams, did not permit participants to form these additional links: they concentrated on men’s tribal identities. Competitions limited to the members of the Athenian military, such as the anthippasia and other cavalry events and the contests ‘for warriors’ in the prize list, brought with them a further emphasis on fighting for the city, and so a close connection with masculinity; in this way, a man’s tribal identity and his Athenian identity came together, as they did not in competitions such as the races for the processional chariot, the zeugos or the (standard) synoris or the cyclic choruses. The fluidity of men’s identities over the course of the Great Panathenaia meant that there were plenty of opportunities for comparison and contrast between both different individuals and different groups. The formats of the procession and the games made these two elements particularly important moments in the festival for noticing similarities and differences. They might be between one individual and other men doing different roles, as in the procession, or between participants and (non-Athenian) nonparticipants, as at the tribal contests. Moments focused particularly on subgroup identity allowed comparisons with members of other subgroups, as we have already noted in a number of areas. In the procession, contrasts also existed between Athenian men in various roles and other participants: metics performing a different series of roles, colonies and allies bringing panoplies and, after about 229 bc, delegations from other cities, which only brought sacrificial animals. There was an additional contrast between Athenian men who took part in the procession and the visitors who watched the procession march by them. These visitors who could only watch also contrasted with Athenian men who were not currently

247

248

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

marching in the procession, like Sokrates and his friends, but who might have done so in the past or might do so in the future.79 The tribal competitions in the games provided further important moments for juxtaposing Athenians, who were both competitors and potential competitors, and non-Athenians, who could never be contestants. These comparisons between Athenian men and others, who were not resident in the city, played a critical role in the identity politics at the penteteric festival, because they allowed the focus to shift from the subgroups to Athenian men as a whole and to set them apart from non-Athenian males. Only in this way could the identities of men as Athenians, rather than simply as members of the city’s subgroups, be created. This process was complex, and it required men to perform multiple roles over the course of the multi-day festival. The variety of opportunities meant that men’s identities were fluid and changed over the course of the festival as different aspects became salient at different moments. The result was a complex overall identity for Athenian men which required repeated participation: the more a man took part, the more complicated his identities became, as they included a greater variety of individual elements.

The Great Panathenaia and the Politics of Being Athenian Men The Great Panathenaia, accordingly, was an important occasion for Athenian men to create identities for themselves by taking part repeatedly in the festival. When they did so, they demonstrated their membership in multiple groups: male citizens of the city, subgroups of the city and also ‘all the Athenians’ who were celebrating the festivities. The identities which men created in this way were complex, with different aspects becoming salient at different moments in the celebration, and thus they were also fluid. The more a man took part in the various events, the more complex his overall individual identity became. Since the identities of male Athenians were closely linked with their roles as citizens of the city, they mapped quite closely on to a very political and Aristotelian definition of citizenship. This element is particularly clear in the games, but it also appears elsewhere, such as in the procession. For this reason, the identities of male Athenians at the penteteric festival quickly reflected political change in the city, a development which first appears at the end of the sixth century bc,

79

Above Chapter 4 with note 8.

The Politics of Being Athenian Men

when the invention of the Kleisthenic system significantly changed the Great Panathenaia. Male Athenian identities did not remain the same over the course of the festival’s history. Before the Kleisthenic reforms in 508/7, the festival was dominated by the socio-economic elite, and so the identities of male Athenians were as members of that social stratum; that at least some gene made their own sacrifices to the goddess reinforced this connection between the ideal Athenian male and high social and economic status. Participation during the tyrannies of Peisistratos and his sons entailed placement in relationship to their regimes, with consequences for a man’s identity. With the institution of the Kleisthenic system in 508/7, the politics of the festival, and so also the identities constructed during it, changed significantly. Since the celebration was now closely linked with the origins of the rule of the demos, it became an important opportunity for a man repeatedly to show his support for that rule. From this point, it seems likely that the democratic elements of men’s identities were always more pronounced when the demos was ruling the city and less important when the city was under an oligarchical or tyrannical regime, as was true in the late fourth and parts of the third century bc. In the aftermath of the changes in 508/7, the penteteric festival became more inclusive: by the period of the prize list in the 380s, there was a variety of different team competitions, some of which, such as the pyrrhiche and the apobatic race, required significant advance preparation, while others, particularly the contest of ships, did not, and thus allowed participation by men rather lower down on the city’s social scale, who did not have enough money to serve as hoplites for the city. The termination of these tribal team events probably in the early third century eliminated opportunities for such men to participate in the games. Together with the victors’ lists of the second quarter and middle of the second century, this development suggests that the festival became more dominated by Athenian men from higher social and economic strata and, therefore, their identities also became more elite. It appears that this process continued in the Roman period, when the overall male Athenian identity seems to have become less complex than it was in the classical and Hellenistic periods. Male Athenian identities, consequently, were no more immune to change than the penteteric celebration itself, even if we do not have the evidence to track these developments in great detail. Since creating this complex male Athenian identity required repeated participation in the festival, and some roles involved advance preparation or other time-consuming activities, such as being a member of the boule, the identities of the Athenian male correlated with social and economic

249

250

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

status in the city. The men of higher status were always over-represented in the festival, so that the overall male identity was not that of the very poorest citizens. After 508/7, it is likely that the elite aspects were understood as having been appropriated by the demos for itself. Since any man could theoretically represent his deme in the procession, and all men present received meat from the sacrifices, the less well-to-do were not completely excluded from participation, and they could share in celebrating Athena’s festival. For them, the men who could afford to participate many times ought to have been exemplary individuals or prototypes, the best examples of what it meant to be an Athenian male and something to which they should aspire, even if they could never actually achieve such positions in reality.80 In this way, the identity politics of the festival meshed quite well with the classical city’s overall civic ideology that all citizens were (politically) equal.81 These male Athenian identities were not constructed in a vacuum; instead, they intersected with other occasions when male identities were created, and they were reinforced by them. For example, the emphasis in the festival on the Athenian man as someone who fought for the city reflects a much wider notion in the classical period that fighting for the city was part of what it meant to be a good citizen. When it appeared in other settings, such the funeral orations, the announcement of the war orphans at the Dionysia and the honorary decrees and statues for Athenian generals,82 these repetitions stressed the importance of this aspect of the identity created at the Great Panathenaia. Similarly, the emphasis on the links between Athenian males and Erichthonios in the festival was reinforced in the later fifth and fourth centuries bc by the very prevalent notion that citizens were autochthonous.83 The emphasis on Athenian men’s positions as supporters of the rule of the demos and their opposition to tyranny, which was particularly brought out by the cult of the Tyrannicides, would also have been reinforced by similar presentations elsewhere in the city on other occasions, such as the announcement at the Dionysia of rewards for anyone killing one of

80

81 82

83

These prototypes, however, also created expectations about what it meant to be an Athenian man and would have made it difficult in this context for poor men to construct alternative identities. Above Chapter 1 with note 48. Funeral orations: Loraux 1986: especially 98 118, 132 71; Goldhill 1990: 109 12; Christ 2006: 28 9; Shear 2013a: 519 20, 523. Dionysia: Goldhill 1990: 105 14; Shear 2011: 149 50; Shear 2013a: 534. Generals: Shear 2011: 277 83. Above Chapter 1 note 47.

The Politics of Being Athenian Men

the (Peisistratid) tyrants.84 When Athenians walked around the city, the importance of killing tyrants (and of modelling oneself on the Tyrannicides) would have been instantiated in the Agora not only in the statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton themselves, but also in figures of generals, which interacted with the earlier monument for the two killers of the tyrant.85 In turn, the repetition in different media and venues of these various aspects of the ideal male identity at the Panathenaia allowed the festival’s identity politics to transcend the particular occasion and, at least in the late fifth and fourth centuries, to become part of the city’s overall ideology of good citizen behaviour. Nor were these dynamics limited to the classical period. In the aftermath of the revolution from Demetrios Poliorketes in 286, there was a very strong emphasis across media and venues on the good Athenian as a democrat who fought for the city.86 It was particularly instantiated in the composite monuments created by the honorary decrees and statues for Kallias of Sphettos and Demochares, which were located in the Agora and thus visible to Athenians as they moved around the city.87 The repetition of this image of the good citizen would have reinforced this element in the contemporary overall male Athenian identity at the Great Panathenaia, which focused on fighting for the city. The idea that the good Athenian should fight for the city was not a notion which was limited in the Hellenistic period to times when Athens was under the control of the demos, because it also appeared clearly in the honorary decree of Phaidros of Sphettos, which was approved soon after the end of the Chremonidean War and probably in 259/8.88 This aspect of Athenian identity will, of course, have received more force during periods when the city was fighting external enemies, as was true in the 240s and 230s or in 200 when the city declared war on Philip V.89 84

85 86 87 88 89

Sommerstein 1987: 272; Dunbar 1995: 581, 583 4; Seaford 2000: 35 with note 22; P. Wilson 2009: 26 with note 81; Shear 2011: 151. Compare also the decree of Demophantos, Andok. 1.96 8, which I still believe to be a genuine document; Shear 2007b; Shear 2011: 75, 98 9, 101 4, 136 41; Shear 2017: 174 5 note 52; cf. Sommerstein 2014; Hansen 2015: 898 901; Carawan 2017: 411 17; contra: Canevaro and Harris 2012; E. M. Harris 2013 14: 121 45. The date of the document does not affect my argument here. Shear 2011: 102 4 with further references, 277 83. Shear 2012a: 283 6, 291 2, cf. 292 5; Shear 2017: 161 82; Shear 2020: 269 75, 283 92. SEG XXVIII 60 IG II3.1 911; [Plut.] X orat. 851d f; Shear 2012a: 290 2. IG II2 682 IG II3.1 985; Shear 2020. Fighting in 240s and 230s: Habicht 1997: 161 6; G. Oliver 2007c: 131 3; M. J. Osborne 2012a: 50 4; Kralli 2003: 64 6, all with further references. Philip V: Polyb. 26.25.1 26.8; Livy 31.14.6 15.5; Habicht 1997: 196 8; Habicht 1982: 142 58; Byrne 2010: 157 9.

251

252

Creating Identities: Athenian Men

In the late first century bc, the Great Panathenaia appears to have changed significantly, with consequences for the overall male identity at the festival. It seems likely that men marching in the procession were still organised by deme and perhaps by tribe; if this suggestion is correct, then it brings out the importance of these traditional markers of Athenian citizenship. It would fit with the similar pattern which I have suggested elsewhere for Athenian identity at the City Dionysia.90 The stress on being an official of the city would also find parallels in the City Dionysia, as does the idea that participating in the festival is a way for a man to demonstrate his citizenship.91 This imagery appears as well in the contemporary choregic monuments which still displayed the tripod awarded to the winning chorus, as they had in the classical period.92 When male citizens walked around the city, the presence of the monuments would have reinforced these ideas of citizen identity and so also the image of the ideal Athenian citizen which was created at the Great Panathenaia. At this time, the interplay between the identities created at Athena’s penteteric festival and elsewhere in the city does not seem to have been significantly different from the patterns which we saw in the classical and Hellenistic periods. Not all aspects of the overall male Athenian identity at the Great Panathenaia, however, were picked up elsewhere in the city on other occasions and in other media. Most importantly, the ideas that men had a close relationship with the goddess and served her are not ones which are obviously visible elsewhere. In the context of the penteteric celebration, in contrast, they were critical elements which marked this identity as different from other identities, for example, those created at the City Dionysia, and they continued to appear throughout the history of Athena’s festival. During the multi-day celebration, men demonstrated these elements of their identities by putting them repeatedly into practice. In this way, their actions contrasted with those of non-participants who watched these Athenian men and were thus marked as not serving the goddess and not having a special relationship with her. They were, consequently, not part of the group of ‘all the Athenians’. Unlike many other aspects of the overall male Athenian identity, the focus on relationships with the goddess was not limited to male citizens, and it was an important feature of the identities created by other residents in the city through their participation in the Great Panathenaia, as we shall see in the next chapter.

90 92

Above Chapter 1 with note 68. Shear 2013b: 406 8.

91

Displaying citizenship: Shear 2013b: 408.

7

Creating Identities at the Great Panathenaia: Other Residents and Non-Residents

In the previous chapter, we focused on the ways in which Athenian men created identities in the context of the Great Panathenaia. As we saw, the ideal male identity was particularly complex, and it required men to take part repeatedly in different parts of the festival. Repeated participation affected the saliency of the various elements of the male identity, so that different ones were important at different moments. Consequently, men’s identities were fluid and changed over the course of the multi-day festival. These identities were also not static over time, and they were particularly sensitive to political developments in the city. Of course, male Athenians were not the only participants in the Great Panathenaia, as we saw in Chapters 4 and 5; rather, many different groups of local residents took part in the celebration, as did some non-residents. These other residents included a variety of classes of individuals living in the city: Athenian women and girls, male metics and their daughters and Athenian boys, beardless youths and ephebes.1 The non-residents, in contrast, were normally not resident in Athens and Attica. Many of them were present at the Great Panathenaia as representatives of their home cities, which had a special relationship with Athens, either by virtue of being a colony of the Athenians or through their status as an ally of Athens; after about 229 bc, these representatives also included ones from cities which had not previously been connected with Athens, as we saw in Chapter 4. In addition, foreign benefactors of the city who were honoured by the Athenians also belonged in this category of non-residents. As with male Athenians, when members of both the residents and non-residents took part in the Great Panathenaia, their actions created ideal roles which also served to constitute the ideal community of ‘all the Athenians’; fulfilling these roles also constructed identities for the holders. In contrast to the male Athenians, the identities which other residents of the city created were not nearly as complex, in part because these other 1

Absent from these groups are metic women and their sons and all slaves.

253

254

Creating Identities: Others

groups had limited opportunities for participation in the celebration. For the identities of other residents, the factors which we discussed in Chapter 6 are again at stake, and several of them are particularly important, especially the issues of gender and its performance, age and class. The identities for Athenian women and girls focused on their service to the goddess and thus indirectly to the city, because their actions helped the city to create and maintain reciprocal relations with Athena. Male metics and later (some of) their daughters were also identified as servants of the goddess. As with the Athenian women and girls, their service to the city was indirect. In contrast, Athenian boys, beardless youths and ephebes had identities which focused on their position as citizens-to-be or as the newest citizens, who were prepared to fight for the city. For them, serving the goddess was not an important element in their identity, and it was done indirectly at best. The identities for these different groups of young people, both Athenian and metic, also involve an aspect of preparation for their roles as full adults. Since boys and beardless youths represented their tribes and ephebes represented their tribes and demes, they also shared in and contributed towards the identities of these subgroups of the city, as apparently did the girls. Like the identities of the other residents, those of non-residents were also not complex, and they reflected the non-residents’ limited participation in the overall celebration. For Athenian colonies and allies, the focus was on their service to the goddess and on helping Athens to create and maintain reciprocal relations with Athena. Since the participation of other cities was modelled on that of the colonies and allies, when they began to participate, in the years after 229, they also created identities as servants of the goddess. In contrast, the benefactors, both individuals and cities, had a different identity, which focused on their services to Athens. In this way, they were marked as good (foreign) benefactors who had previously helped Athens and would (hopefully) continue to do so in the future. The participation of both non-residents and residents also marked them as members of the corporate group of ‘all the Athenians’, and the presence of the former has important consequences for how we understand the identity of this community. As we shall see, its composition was fluid, and it changed over the course of the multi-day festival, so that different members were included at different times. The processes of comparing and contrasting are particularly important in identifying members and nonmembers. Here, the international visitors had a significant role to play as non-members, who were excluded and thus served as the main point of contrast for the members of the group. Thus, how one did or did not take

Being Athenian Women

part in the Great Panathenaia was instrumental in determining what it meant to be a member of ‘all the Athenians’ who were celebrating the Great Panathenaia.

Being Athenian Women In all periods, the numbers of Athenian women included in the Panathenaia were apparently limited, and they were involved because of their religious roles in the proceedings. Consequently, their identities focused on their duties in serving the goddess. Of these women, the most important must have been the priestess of Athena, but, since she was always a member of the genos of the Eteoboutadai,2 she was not representative. Nevertheless, her presence was important, because it demonstrated that, in the context of the festival, she, and by extension other women, were a part of the city, and they were not excluded from it.3 On the band cup, the priestess of Athena is shown shaking hands with the man leading the procession, and so she welcomes the procession to the goddess’ sanctuary and her altar, which stands between her and the man (Fig. 4.5). This depiction brings out the priestess’ role as an independent actor, and it suggests that such actions would not have been foreign to viewers of the cup.4 If it was normal for the priestess of the goddess to receive the procession, then all participants would have witnessed her independent actions and her central role, which, in turn, stressed her membership both in the city and especially in the community of ‘all the Athenians’. In the middle of the fifth century bc, the priestess of Athena Polias was presumably joined by the newly instituted priestess of Athena Nike.5 Since this priestess was appointed by lot from all Athenian women, her position was more representative of the average Athenian woman than the priestess of Athena Polias could ever be. At the same time, the method of selection extended the standard (democratic) procedures for choosing men for political office to all women and emphasised their membership in the city.6 Only one woman could be priestess of Athena Nike at any one 2 3

4 5

6

Aischin. 2.147; Parker 1996: 290; Connelly 2007: 59. As they were in so many other areas, particularly after the institution of the Kleisthenic system, which did not allow them to participate, for example, in the assembly or the courts. On this point, compare Goff 2004: 177 8, 179. Agency: cf. Goff 2004: 167 9. IG I3 35.3 6; on the problems of the date, see now Shear, Jr 2016: 27 35 with earlier bibliography; against an early date, see e.g. Gill 2001; Mattingly 2000; Mattingly 2007: 109 10. Compare Goff 2004: 183 4.

255

256

Creating Identities: Others

time, however, and thus most women never had the opportunity to hold this position. Since the Parthenon frieze shows adult women, as well as kanephoroi and other maidens, at the beginning of the procession (Table 4.8),7 their presence in the procession must have been the norm by the middle of the fifth century, and this role would have allowed additional (Athenian) women to take part. Presumably, in order to be eligible, they had to be fully adult and properly married, so issues of age and social status were in play. Nevertheless, most Athenian women spectated rather than actually marching in the procession. As we saw in Chapter 3, watching requires a conscious decision to do so, and so it is a form of participation, but it is unmarked in contrast to marching in the procession. For these female Athenian spectators, the women who were in the procession ought to have served as exemplary individuals on whom they should model themselves. Since the aspiration one day to serve the goddess is an important aspect of this dynamic, the addition of the priestess of Athena Nike, elected from all Athenian women, and the inclusion of other (Athenian) women in the procession created the possibility that the spectating women eventually might actually fulfil one of these roles. In so doing, she, too, would create an identity for herself as a servant of the goddess. In the sixth century, the participation of Athenian women must have been dominated by individuals of high social and economic standing, particularly because the priestess of Athena Polias was a member of the Eteoboutadai. Thus, the ideal Athenian woman was herself a member of these elite classes. Since her actions helped the city to create and maintain her relationship with the goddess, she was also seen to serve the city, albeit in an indirect way.8 With the institution of the new Kleisthenic system in 508/7, the city was now isonomic and democratic, and so this woman of high social and economic statuses was now shown indirectly to serve the demos. As this situation indicates, the exact nature of the city which the ideal Athenian women served must have tracked the city’s political regimes closely, particularly in the Hellenistic period. In this sense, the dynamics are similar to those of the ideal male Athenian identity, except that serving the city was not a dominant element of the female identity, as it was for the men. 7

8

Above Chapter 4. Their bound up hair covered with headscarves identifies E8 9, E11, E57 and E61 as adult women and not girls; E. B. Harrison 1989: 53. Since some of the female figures are not well preserved, there may have been one or two more women depicted. Compare the third century priestesses who are commended only for their piety towards the gods and not for their actions towards the demos; IG II2 776.22 6 IG II3.1 1026.22 6; IG II3.1 1189.1 3; SEG XXXIII 115.30 3 IG II3.1 1002.30 3. One of these women was the priestess of Athena Polias.

Being Athenian Women

By the middle of the fifth century, the number of women certainly participating in the Great Panathenaia had increased. Since the date of this change is unclear, it is difficult to know how it affected women’s identities. If larger numbers of women started participating either as part of the changes introduced after 508/7 or at some time shortly before the middle of the century, then we could understand this decision as a way of opening up participation in the festival not only to more women, but also to women who were not perhaps quite as high in social and economic standing as the priestess of Athena Polias.9 Such a development in the middle of the century would also fit with the democratic method of appointment for the new priestess of Athena Nike. If the decision to include more women had been made by the demos, then it may have strengthened the women’s sense that they were serving not only the goddess, but also the democratic city. Since their service included marching in the procession, they demonstrated visibly their membership in the sacrificial community of ‘all the Athenians’, which, in the middle of the fifth century, reflected the democratic nature of the city. The inclusion of the women here contrasts with their regular exclusion from such important civic institutions as the assembly, the boule and the courts. At the same time, the focus of the women’s identity-making at the Panathenaia also contrasts with the parallel activities at a series of other festivals, which concentrate on the women’s roles as good wives and mothers.10 Although our evidence for Athenian women’s involvement in the Great Panathenaia is best for the sixth and fifth centuries, it seems unlikely that they did not continue to be involved in later periods. The priestesses were certainly necessary. Indeed, as late as the ad 370s, Himerios described the crew of the ship-car as ‘both priests and priestesses, all eupatridai’.11 Thus, even at this time, at least some women were still creating identities as servants of the goddess and demonstrating their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’. That Himerios describes this crew as eupatridai (‘noble’) should indicate that his priestesses were members of high social and probably economic standing in the city, much as they had been 9

10

11

According to the scholia on the Hecuba, which cite Pherekrates’ Doulodidaskalos, not just maidens, but also adult women were involved with weaving the peplos; schol. vet. Eur. Hec. 467 (Schwartz) citing Pherekr. fr. 51 (PCG). As Parker rightly notes, ‘we cannot control his evidence’; Parker 2005: 227 note 41. That the play was a comedy entitled Slave Trainer does not inspire confidence in it as a source of information about Athenian women. Other festivals: Goff 2004:. 120 46. She particularly discusses the Thesmophoria, the Adonia and the Haloa. Himer. Or. 47.13 (Colonna); for the date, see Barnes 1987: 217 18; Penella 2007: 208 9; cf. Völker 2003: 48, 288 note 2.

257

258

Creating Identities: Others

in the sixth century bc. At this time, most Athenian women may well not have been involved in the festival except as spectators of the procession. The ways in which Athenian women’s identities were created at the Great Panathenaia, consequently, contrast significantly with the processes for constructing Athenian men’s identities. Since relatively few women took part in the proceedings, they had limited opportunities for creating identities, which focused on serving the goddess and displaying one’s membership in the body of ‘all the Athenians’; they also included a secondary aspect of serving the city, the exact nature of which reflected the city’s current political situation. In contrast to the situation with Athenian men, this element was not a significant part of the overall female identity created at the penteteric festival. Since most women took part in the proceedings as unmarked spectators, gaining this identity required them to view the participants, whose activity was marked, as exemplary individuals on whom those watching should model themselves as they also aspired to active participation in the penteteric festival. In contrast, Athenian males created their identities not through prototypes, but through their own active participation in a variety of different parts of the celebration. That at least some Athenian women did take part actively in procession and sacrifices, however, set them apart from visitors, whose only role was as spectators of the actions of ‘all the Athenians’ and who could never even aspire to be part of this sacrificial community.

Being Athenian Girls As with Athenian women, the participation of Athenian girls was also limited, and it was focused on their service to the goddess; there were also secondary aspects which linked closely with their female gender and their age as appropriate for marriage. Their most prominent role was as a kanephoros who carried the basket with the equipment needed for the sacrifices.12 As we saw in Chapter 4, in the middle of the fifth century and the third quarter of the fourth century, the procession included multiple kanephoroi, perhaps even enough in the fourth century to use many of the one hundred sets of gold ornaments given by Lykourgos; in other periods, there may well have been at least several basket-bearers. The Parthenon frieze shows not only girls with baskets, but also girls with other (sacred) objects; the designers could easily imagine a large number of girls 12

Above Chapter 3 note 46.

Being Athenian Girls

participating in the procession, and they could make the objects which they hold the only obvious distinction between them.13 As we saw in Chapter 3, when the dedication of a peplos was added to the Little Panathenaia in the late second century bc, the girls who worked the wool for the peplos were included in the procession. This situation suggests that the procession at the contemporary penteteric celebration also included a parallel group of girls who had performed the same task. If this interpretation is correct, their presence at the Great Panathenaia may very well not have been limited to the late second century; for contemporary Athenians, it may perhaps have been a traditional aspect of the procession. If so, then including the girls involved with the making of the peplos would have allowed for participation by a significantly larger group of girls than the kanephoroi and the bearers of other (sacred) objects. Depending on the period, they may have been drawn from a wider socio-economic spectrum of Athenian society. The other potential occasion for girls to participate in the Great Panathenaia was the extremely shadowy pannychis, which we discussed in connection with the Little Panathenaia in Chapter 3. Since such all-night revels usually involve choruses of maidens, it is likely that they provided another opportunity for girls to take part in the festivities. Girls’ positions, accordingly, focused on their service to the goddess, whether by bringing objects in the procession, by making the peplos to be dedicated to her or by entertaining her at the pannychis. Our evidence about known kanephoroi suggests that the girls often came from families of high social and economic standing, as we saw in Chapter 4. Since making the peplos and practising for the choruses had to happen in advance, it is likely that girls from better-off families were over-represented, because their families could afford to have them doing these activities rather than helping at home. How participation in these roles might have been understood in the later fifth century is brought out by two passages about kanephoroi, albeit not ones serving at Athena’s festival. In Thucydides’ story of the events leading up to the assassination of Hipparchos, the invitation to Harmodios’ sister to be kanephoros in some procession makes clear the position’s social importance.14 Since the sister is described as a kore (κόρην), when she is dismissed as being unworthy (διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀξίαν 13

14

If holding a kanoun is the marker of being a kanephoros, then only E16 17, E50 1 and E53 4 qualify; I. Jenkins 1994: 81; Neils 2001: 157. Of the females on this side, E7, E10, E12 17, E50 1, E53 6 and E58 9 have long hair and certainly wear the shoulder mantle hanging behind them, a garment which Roccos has identified as typical of the kanephoros; Roccos 1995; Neils 2001: 158. Thuc. 6.56.1 2.

259

260

Creating Identities: Others

εἶναι), the implication is that she is no longer a maiden and therefore not eligible for the role.15 Harmodios’ and Aristogeiton’s anger at this situation demonstrates that (not) holding this position had implications for a girl’s family, as well as for herself: if she was kanephoros successfully, then both she and her family gained in honour. Thus, at the Great Panathenaia, being kanephoros allowed a girl to serve the goddess and to create identities, while it also brought honour to her family and demonstrated her (and their) social standing in the city. These dynamics elucidate why Miltiades, the son of Zoilos, when he was agonothetes of the Great Panathenaia in 142 bc, appointed his daughter as kanephoros.16 Further evidence for how the position might be understood is suggested by the women’s chorus in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata.17 Their list of religious duties which they undertook in the past culminates with being kanephoros, as a beautiful girl, at an unspecified festival, and these services both show that the city raised them in comfort and renown and also now qualify them to give advice to the city. By performing these particular positions, they served the divinities involved, as the reference to being an aletris for the Archegetis makes clear.18 That these duties allow them to advise the city further suggests that, in some unspecified way, we should understand their activities for the divine as service to the city; here, the connection is presumably through helping the city to create and maintain their reciprocal relations with the relevant divinities. In the chorus’ list, the position of kanephoros is the last of the four, and it marks the termination of their various services as girls. Harmodios’ sister was also clearly near the age when she ought to be married, hence the concern about her (lack of) virginity. These passages fit with our more general evidence about kanephoroi, which links the girls with beauty, beautiful performance and readiness for marriage.19 In the procession, the girls were displayed to the gaze of the whole city; particularly in the archaic period, it is easy to imagine how beneficial this process would be for fathers from families of high socioeconomic standing who wished to arrange good marriage alliances with other similar families!20 Family reputation and social standing were certainly at stake for the fathers, as well as their daughters. For the kanephoroi 15

16 18

19

20

Lavelle 1986; cf. Goff 2004: 114 15; contra: Brulé 1988: 303 5; Lambert 2015: 185; Blok 2017: 251 note 7. IG II2 968.52 3. 17 Ar. Lys. 638 48. Following the punctuation of Wilson’s OCT text; N. G. Wilson 2007b: 140 1; cf. Parker 2005: 223. Beauty and beautiful performance: Ar. Ach. 253 4; Ekkl. 730 1. See more generally Brulé 1988: 287 310, 315 17; Goff 2004: 113 15 and Parker 2005: 224 6, both with further references. Compare Brulé 1988: 308; Goff 2004: 314; Parker 2005: 226.

Being Athenian Girls

themselves at the Great Panathenaia, their service to Athena also marked them as being at the very end of childhood and ready for marriage and for the transition to being adult women, with all the individual consequences which such a change involved. Although we know almost nothing about the choruses of maidens at the pannychis, our general knowledge of such choruses suggests something about the identities which the girls created at the Great Panathenaia.21 When Euripides mentions them in the Herakleidai, he specifically calls them parthenoi; they must have been much the same age as the kanephoroi and, like them, also of an age to be ready for marriage.22 Similarly, they must have come from families of higher social and economic standing. When they danced, and presumably also sang, they not only entertained the goddess, but they also displayed themselves, so that they were watched by the city.23 As with the kanephoroi, family standing is again at issue, and the benefits for the girls’ fathers are evident, especially in the archaic period. The girls’ participation in the festival identifies them, too, as about to become adult women. Since the Great Panathenaia only took place once every four years, a girl, whether she was carrying a basket or part of a chorus, had one opportunity, at best, to take part in the festivities. When girls took part in the penteteric festival, accordingly, they created identities which focused primarily on their service to the goddess, and they demonstrated their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’. Since their roles in the procession were part of the process by which the city created and maintained her reciprocal relations with Athena, there was also an element of serving the city, but it does not seem to be the dominant aspect of their identities. As we have seen with the identities of other Athenians, the exact nature of the city which they served will have been determined by the city’s current political regime. If the girls involved with making the peplos were also part of the procession, then there was an additional explicit aspect of preparation for adult female activities, as we saw with the Little Panathenaia in Chapter 3; for the kanephoroi and the chorus members, this element appears to be inherent in the position itself, which identifies the holders as ready for marriage and so, ultimately, ready to produce future citizens.24 In the procession, the girls making the robe would also have been displayed to the city; presumably they, too, showed off that they were ready for marriage. All the girls advertised the social 21 22 23 24

On such choruses, Calame 1997 is fundamental. Euripides: above Chapter 3 note 66; age: Calame 1997: 27 8. On choruses, display and the gaze, see helpfully Goff 2004: 85 92. Compare Goff 2004: 96 7.

261

262

Creating Identities: Others

standing of their families, which gained honour through the process. Although considerably more girls than Athenian women seem to have been involved in any single penteteric festival, the numbers were still limited. The girls who did participate, consequently, functioned as exemplary individuals for the (undoubtedly) far larger number of girls who watched and would probably never take part in the Great Panathenaia, except as spectators, albeit ones who had chosen to do so. They further contrasted with any girls from elsewhere, who may have come with their families to the festival, but, as non-Athenians, could never be more than foreign spectators. When the Athenian girls performed these different roles, their actions created a model for what it meant to be a girl in this city: to carry out these positions in Athena’s festival. Accepting this normative behaviour and fulfilling the position marked a girl as ‘good’, while refusing did not; in this way, the roles and the expectations reinforced each other. Since these identities focused on central functions concerning what it meant to be female in the city, it is not surprising that there seems to have been relatively little change in this identity over the long time span of the penteteric festival. The processes at work in the girls’ identities, consequently, are close to those of Athenian women and, as we shall see below, significantly different from those of Athenian boys, beardless youths and ephebes.

Being Athenian Metics The identity of servant of the goddess was not limited to Athenian men, women and girls, because it was also the dominant element in the identities which metics and their daughters constructed at the Great Panathenaia. The only role open to metics was as skaphephoroi in the procession, as we saw in Chapter 4. They were certainly fulfilling this duty at the Great Panathenaia by the middle of the fifth century, and the position may have been introduced rather earlier, perhaps already at the end of the sixth century when the metic status was introduced in connection with the Kleisthenic reforms.25 Since the metics’ function in the procession was as bearers of trays with honeycombs and flat cakes, they were immediately marked as servants of the goddess who brought her gifts and, therefore, also had a special relationship with her. At the same time, this service incorporated them into the procession and identified them as members of the 25

Above Chapter 4.

Being Athenian Metics

community of ‘all the Athenians’. This relationship set them apart from visitors who were only present in the city for the festival and contributed to the proceedings either as spectators or, at most, as contestants in the open competitions in the games. Since the Great Panathenaia has a distinct politics of participation and inclusion, deciding to give metics a place in the procession was significant because it made their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’ explicitly visible. If the positions of metic skaphephoroi were added at the end of the sixth century along with the other changes caused by the new Kleisthenic system, then their presence would have made their inclusion in the newly isonomic city distinctly visible both to Athenians and to their visitors.26 If the position was added at a later time, between 508/7 and the middle of the fifth century, then it would have represented a visible opening up of the festival to include other groups within the overall community of ‘all the Athenians’. The role clearly marked the metics as the goddess’ servants who brought items for the sacrifice and so made their special relationship to her clear. Indeed, with their bronze or silver trays and their purple chitons, they were all dressed up in their very best to honour Athena. Their position was parallel to those of other bearers of sacred objects and particularly to the kanephoroi, who were also dressed up and whose baskets contained items necessary for offering the sacrificial animals. The metics were also parallel to the contingents from the Athenian demes, tribes and gene which conducted their own victims to give to the goddess. In this way, they, too, served the (democratic) city, albeit indirectly. In the context of the Great Panathenaia, the focus here is on the metics as members of the city and especially as members of the sacrificial community of ‘all the Athenians’. Since being a skaphephoros was a liturgy for metics, those involved must have been rich, and their participation in their purple chitons made visible their high economic status in the city.27 Since the festival overall focused on inclusion and on membership in ‘all the Athenians’, these politics must have affected how metics understood their roles and the identities which they were creating. It is easy to imagine them proudly participating in the celebration and displaying their membership in the community. The later lexicographical sources, however, did not understand the role of the skaphephoroi in quite this way. When they discuss the Dionysia, they emphasise the contrast between the metics, who had to wear purple chitons 26

27

That skaphephoroi were shown in vase painting in the period between 510 and 470 bc suggests that the position may have been added to the procession at this time; above Chapter 4 note 54. On the expensiveness of the purple garments, see Wijma 2014: 46 with note 35, 63.

263

264

Creating Identities: Others

and to carry trays, and the citizens (ἀστοί), who wore what they wanted and carried askoi.28 For modern scholars, this contrast is negative and brings out the lower status of the metics.29 The lexicographical sources, however, specifically associate the contrast, and thus the politics, with the Dionysia and not with the Panathenaia. Indeed, at Athena’s festival, this contrast could not exist, because there was a series of different groups of people all bearing items (cf. Table 4.3), while a variety of other groups brought sacrifices and dedications for the goddess (cf. Tables 4.5 and 4.10); many of the individuals were citizens, but many also were not. Carrying a tray at the Great Panathenaia, consequently, created different identities than at the Dionysia, and we should not assume that the two identities were the same. At Athena’s festival, the focus was on inclusion and service to the goddess, while, at Dionysos’ celebration, the emphasis was on citizens and difference within the community, an aspect seen elsewhere in that particular occasion.30 At the Great Panathenaia, comparison and contrast was an important aspect of creating metic identities. They were similar to other groups bringing different sacred objects and sacrificial animals. Like them, the metics were included in the proceedings, they were serving the goddess and thus they were making their membership in the sacrificial community visible. Since they were spending their money on liturgies, their activities were, in some sense, parallel to those of Athenian men who sponsored tribal teams. In these ways, the metics also contrasted with visitors who watched the procession and sacrifices and did not take part. If Hesychios was correct that the metics were entitled to a share in the sacrifices because they served as skaphephoroi,31 then their inclusion in the central element of

28

29 30

31

Lexeis Rhetorikai s.v. ἀσκοφορεῖν (214, 3 Bekker); Suda, Etym. Magn. s.v. ἀσκοφορεῖν; above Chapter 4. E.g. Maurizio 1998: 309; Parker 2005: 258 with note 25; Wijma 2014: 51 2. Ideology of Dionysia: see e.g. Goldhill 1990; Ober and Strauss 1990: 237 40, 248 9; Henderson 1990: 285 7; Goldhill 1994: 360 9; Sourvinou Inwood 1994: 270 3; Griffith 1995: 62 5, 107 24; Goldhill 2000: 35, 42 47; Sourvinou Inwood 2003: 71 2; P. Wilson 2009; Shear 2011: 135 54; cf. Wijma 2014: 80 1; contra: Griffin 1998; Rhodes 2003; cf. Rhodes 2011. When the lexicographical sources explain the proverb ‘more mute than a tray’, they mention unspecified processions only to elucidate the term skaphephoros, and they do not connect the proverb with the Panathenaia or any other festival; Theophr. fr. 654 (Fortenbaugh); repeated by Paus. Att., Phot. Lex., Suda s.v. συστομώτερον σκάφης. The information in Zenobios 5.95, Diogenianos 8.12 and Apostolios 15.75 also appears to reflect Theophrastos indirectly, if Pausanias Atticista s.v. συστομώτερον σκάφης (Erbse, p. 210, no. 31) is correctly identified as the source for these authors. The dynamics described here are a clear example of an imposed (and negative) identity and do not reveal how metics understood their own participation in festivals. Above Chapter 4 note 40.

Being Athenian Metics

the festival could hardly have been clearer. Again, they contrasted strongly with the visitors, who were not included. At the Great Panathenaia of 402, these identity politics were probably particularly important both for metics and also for the overall Athenian community. Under the regime of the Thirty, rich metics had been persecuted for their wealth, and many must have left or been forced to leave the city.32 The Thirty clearly did not want metics at Athens and did not regard them as part of the community; rather, they were a rich resource to be exploited for the Thirty’s own benefit. In contrast, in 402, at the first Great Panathenaia after the overthrow of the Thirty, the metics’ participation in the procession marked their inclusion in the community and displayed their service to the goddess with whom the community particularly needed to rebuild reciprocal relations. Now, their wealth was being used appropriately to benefit in the city in her dealings with Athena and in ways parallel to the tribal teams sponsored by rich Athenian men. There could be not doubt about the metics’ membership in ‘all the Athenians’ who, in the course of the festival, were shown to be reconciled and democratic again. This city clearly valued the metics, unlike the city of the Thirty. In the context of the Great Panathenaia, consequently, male metics had the opportunity to create specific identities as servants of the goddess and members of the community of ‘all the Athenians’. Since they helped the group to create and maintain reciprocal relations with the goddess, they were also indirectly serving the (democratic) city. The metics who took on this role would have had a certain amount of wealth, because it was a liturgy for them, and thus the rich were disproportionately represented. Since only male metics could be skaphephoroi, gender is involved here: to be a male metic was to carry out this role in the festival, and in this way, he was, by definition, good. There is a strong normative element at work here which could only be met by fulfilling the role. Although the liturgy system itself ceased at some time between 317 and 307, this development concerned funding, not the role, which most probably continued until the end of the metoikia in about 229, as we saw in Chapter 4. During the third century, consequently, metics continued to create identities at Athena’s festival, but the nature of the city which they (indirectly) served mirrored the current political situation of the city. On the basis of our extremely limited evidence, the metics’ overall identity at the festival, however, does not seem to have changed significantly in the third century from the classical period. In their continuity and their focus on serving the goddess, metics’ identities 32

Xen. Hell. 2.3.21, 41; Lys. 12.6 34; Diod. 14.5.6; cf. Krentz 1982: 80 1, 84.

265

266

Creating Identities: Others

are strikingly similar to those of the Athenian women and girls, and they contrast with the much more complicated identities of Athenian men which we discussed in the previous chapter. The rather muted way in which metics performed their masculinities also differs from the much more emphatic and very martial performance of male citizens and their sons, as we shall see shortly.

Being Metics’ Daughters In addition to the metics, their daughters were also given roles in the procession and so they, too, gained the opportunity to create identities for themselves. Unlike their fathers, the daughters had several possible roles open to them: some of them carried hydria, while others held parasols and/ or stools and walked behind the kanephoroi, as we saw in Chapter 4. Just as these opportunities for participation were not the same, so also the identities created by fulfilling them differed. For all these positions, the girls performing them were clearly included in the overall community, but serving the goddess was only the primary focus of the hydriaphoroi. In contrast, the identities of the stool- and parasol-bearers emphasised their civic status, while their service to the goddess was less important, because they only served her indirectly. The identities of the hydriaphoroi should now be familiar. These metic girls brought hydriai with water, which was necessary for the sacrifices, and so they joined the ranks of the bearers of other sacred objects and necessary supplies. In this way, they served the goddess and, indirectly, the city, while their presence in the procession demonstrated their inclusion in the community of ‘all the Athenians’.33 They compared nicely both with the kanephoroi, who were also girls bringing necessary objects for the sacrifice and about the same age, and with their fathers, who were metics bringing items to give to the goddess. They also contrasted with individuals who were not members of the community and so could only watch as the members marched by. If carrying a hydria was a liturgy, just as carrying a tray was, then the hydriaphoroi must have come from the ranks of rich metic families. For the daughters of less well-off metics, the hydriaphoroi served as exemplary individuals, the epitome of what it meant to be the daughter of a metic at Athens. They could certainly aspire to live up to this 33

This identity must also have been true for the male hydriaphoroi in the procession in the middle of the fifth century, irrespective of their civic status in the city.

Being Metics’ Daughters

model, but they might not achieve it in actuality, unless the family’s financial situation changed. The identities of the diphrophoroi and the parasol-bearers are rather more complex than those of the hydriaphoroi. In the Birds, Aristophanes explicitly imagines the girls with parasols and stools as following (ἀκολουθεῖν) the kanephoroi and thus, by implication, the parasols and stools are for the benefit of the kanephoroi.34 Presumably, we should imagine each basket-bearer being followed by at least one metic girl. The apparently large numbers of kanephoroi expected in the third quarter of the fourth century required either an equal number of metic girls, if one girl carried both parasol and stool, or twice as many, if each metic girl held only one object. Since the testimonia specifically associate the metic girls with the basket-bearers, they probably did not follow other girls carrying other sacred vessels. In this way, distinctions would have been made between the two groups of Athenian girls, and the kanephoroi will have been marked out as different and presumably more special. These metic girls carrying parasols and stools are most directly serving the basket-bearers, rather than the goddess, as the hydriaphoroi, the kanephoroi and other Athenian girls did. In contrast to the other identities which we have discussed so far, these metic girls’ service to the goddess is strikingly indirect. For the metic girls carrying parasols and stools, the basket-bearers were the most obvious point of comparison and contrast, not only because they followed directly behind the kanephoroi, but also because both groups of girls were parthenoi and thus about the same age. In this way, these daughters of metics served the daughters of citizens, who served the goddess. Certainly, these metic girls were included in the community of ‘all the Athenians’, but the differences in civic status were clearly brought out, as they were not with the identities of Athenian women and girls and their metic fathers at the festival. Even in the democratic community of ‘all the Athenians’, not all individuals were exactly equal, a fact which the other identities discussed so far has not made clear. At the same time, there was a contrast with the other metic girls, who carried 34

Ar. Birds 1549 52 and so also schol. Ar. Birds 1551a, 1552a; cf. Suda s.v. διφροφόρος; Hsch. Etym. Magn. s.v. διφροφόροι. Benefit of kanephoroi: e.g. Sommerstein 1987: 299; Dunbar 1995: 709 10; Parker 2005: 258; cf. Wijma 2014: 50. Like Aristophanes, the Suda uses the verb ἠκολούθει to describe the relationship to the basket bearers, while Hesychios and the Etymologicum Magnum employ εἵποντο: they evidently belong together. Consequently, I remain unconvinced by Wijma’s attempt to disassociate the diphrophoroi from the kanephoroi; Wijma 2014: 50 1. On the Parthenon frieze, the girls E31 and E32, who both carry stools, are neither relevant nor obviously metic girls; on the stools, see Neils 2001: 167 8 with note 103 and Shear, Jr 2016: 132 with note 161, both with further references.

267

268

Creating Identities: Others

hydriai and served the goddess directly. Their role did not create identities which emphasised the difference in civic status between them and other participants. All these positions for metic daughters were presumably liturgies and, therefore, carried out by the daughters of rich metics. The contrasts between the identities of the hydriaphoroi and the bearers of parasols and stools are striking, because they suggest rather different understandings of what it means to be a member of ‘all the Athenians’. Perhaps these differences indicate that the roles were added to the festival at different times and under different conditions. The Parthenon frieze indicates that, in the middle of the fifth century, the hydriaphoroi were male, while the absence of bearers of stools and parasols with the kanephoroi suggests that these positions had not yet been invented. By the City Dionysia of 414, when the Birds was performed, carrying stools and parasols behind the basket-bearers seems to have become normal and was not restricted to a particular procession or festival.35 If these roles were added by law to multiple festivals, then their odd position at the Great Panathenaia could be explained as the unintended consequence of a larger piece of legislation.36 If we knew the exact circumstances, we would be better able to understand the consequences for the identities created at Athena’s festival. Once positions for metics’ daughters were introduced to the Panathenaia, they certainly continued until at least the late fourth century, and they probably had a history very parallel to that of the metic skaphephoroi. So far, we have focused on the differences between the two groups of metic daughters, but their identities also had important aspects in common, because all the girls were maidens (parthenoi): they were at the end of childhood and ready for marriage. They were, therefore, exactly parallel to the Athenian girls, both those who carried necessary items and those who danced in the choruses at the pannychis. In the procession, the metic girls were also being displayed to the city, which watched them. This aspect of their identity, consequently, correlated extremely closely with their female gender, and it allowed them to create a female identity which was parallel to that of the Athenian basket-bearers. Since carrying water was a typical female domestic task, the hydriaphoroi were also being prepared for married life.37 In this way, their task was analogous to that of the girls preparing 35 36

37

Above Chapter 4 with note 47. Such a context might also explain the change from male to female hydriaphoroi at the Panathenaia, as well as Demetrios of Phaleron’s statement that the positions for metics’ daughters were mandated by law; above Chapter 4 note 50. Perhaps this change occurred in the 420s? Goff 2004: 55.

Being Athenian Boys

the peplos. The roles for the metic girls with the stools and parasols, in contrast, do not have this added element of preparation for being an adult. The identities which metics’ daughters created at the Great Panathenaia, consequently, were not all the same. For the hydriaphoroi, being a servant of the goddess was particularly salient, and their roles and identities were analogous to those of other bearers of sacred items and necessary materials, irrespective of civic status, and particularly to those of the basket-bearers. In contrast, for the girls carrying stools and parasols, serving the goddess was done indirectly, and so it was not as salient a part of their identities as it was for the hydriaphoroi. For them, the focus was on their role in serving the kanephoroi, and the process made clear the differences in the civic statuses of the various girls involved. The girls with stools and parasols were certainly included in the community of ‘all the Athenians’, but not quite on the same terms as the other groups of residents whom we have discussed so far, and with consequences for the identities which were created. The identities of the metic girls form a particularly interesting comparison with those of daughters of citizens. In both cases, multiple roles were available, but a girl could only perform one in any particular festival. Indeed, like the kanephoroi, a metic girl really only had one opportunity in her life to participate in the Great Panathenaia. When the daughters of citizens did so, they all created identities focused on their service to the goddess, irrespective of exactly which role they took on. In contrast, the two roles for the daughters of metics created rather different identities; those of the girls carrying stools and parasols stand out through their focus on serving the kanephoroi and only indirectly the goddess. From the perspective of the identity politics of the festival, the role of the hydriaphoroi appears distinctly preferable to those of the bearers of stools and parasols.

Being Athenian Boys The identities which we have discussed so far for Athenian women and girls and for metics and their daughters have been distinctly focused on service to the goddess, although, for the metic daughters carrying stools and parasols, it was not the most salient part of their identities. For all these roles, their service to the city was indirect, and it took the form of helping the city to create and maintain her reciprocal relations with the goddess. In contrast, the situation for Athenian boys and beardless youths is quite different: their identities focused on their relationship to the city and their roles as citizens-to-be and the newest citizens of the community

269

270

Creating Identities: Others

who, in due course, would be prepared to fight on behalf of Athens. For them, serving the goddess was not an important part of their identities, as is brought out by their absence from the procession. As with the girls, both Athenian and metic, age is also a factor in these identities, because boys and beardless youths had to be exactly the right age to participate in these roles and so create the identities. As we saw in Chapter 5, at least some open events for boys were already included in the games in 566, when the Great Panathenaia was established. Whether there were also competitions for them in the pyrrhiche at this time is difficult to know, because our earliest evidence for the dance in arms dates to the period of about 520–510.38 Since the event is closely connected with the festival’s mythology, it seems likely that such contests did exist, but certainty is not possible. Other boys’ events were definitely included in the games by about 520 (Table 5.6) when, most probably, Athenian boys also had their own contest in the pyrrhiche. Taking part in this team competition restricted to Athenians brought out their status as the son of a citizen and a citizen-to-be of the city. Their weapons and armour looked ahead to the day when, as men, they would be ready to fight for the city; in this sense, we may understand the pyrrhiche as providing an opportunity for the boys to prepare for adult life. Their role here correlates closely with their gender as male Athenian children, while it also responds to the adult male Athenian’s role as an individual who fights on behalf of the city. Since participants in the competition imitated the goddess, taking part in the pyrrhiche demonstrated the close relationship between the Athenian boys and the goddess, but they did not act as her servants. Competing in the event also marked them out as members of the ‘all the Athenians’, a position which they would otherwise not have had, because they were not included in the procession or the sacrifices. Since the contest required both the equipment of a hoplite and advanced preparation, most boys must have come from families with high social and economic statuses; if the participants in the tribal contests in this period represented their gene in the restricted competitions, as I suggested in Chapter 6, then boys from families of lower social status would not have had the opportunity to take part in the pyrrhiche. For them, the boy pyrrhichistai served as exemplary individuals on whom they should model their behaviour so that they, too, prepared for the day when, as citizens, they would fight on behalf of the city. With the invention of the Kleisthenic system in 508/7, Athenian boys now became the sons of democrats, as well as of citizens, and so they 38

Above Chapters 2 and 5.

Being Athenian Boys

became democrats-to-be, as well as citizens-to-be. In this way, they were identified as the future of the isonomic and democratic city which, in due course, as citizens, they would protect by fighting in arms, a skill practised in the competition. In this period, the identities of the citizen male and his (male) son continue to interlock, and the former goes on influencing the latter, as it did earlier in the sixth century. Since most, if not all, of the boys presumably still came from families of high social and economic standing, their participation demonstrated these families’ support for the new political system. As with male Athenian identities, these developments at the end of the sixth century were extremely important, because they created the basic pattern for being a good Athenian boy which would continue through the early third century bc. Although, at the end of the sixth century, the boys would have been members of the city’s upper social and economic classes, over time the composition of the various teams must have become broader and more inclusive. By the 420s, Athenian boys could also compete in the cyclic chorus, as we saw in discussing the games; this event was probably introduced in 446, when the musical competitions were reincorporated in the programme of the games.39 This tribal contest offered boys further opportunities to represent their tribe and so to demonstrate their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’. Since tribal affiliation was necessary, the participants were, by definition, the sons of democratic citizens and so themselves democratic citizens-to-be. In this event, unlike in the pyrrhiche, boys did not have the opportunity to display a close connection with the goddess nor to prepare for future military action on behalf of the city. Thus, the connection here with practising for their adult roles is much less important than with the boy pyrrhichistai, and there is not an obvious link between singing in the chorus and the boys’ male gender. Since the skills involved in this contest were not the same as those needed for the dance in arms, the addition of the cyclic chorus to the programme provided opportunities for more boys to take part in the festival. The exact identities of any particular chorus would have been affected by the song which they sang; the lack of preservation of such texts hinders our understanding of these specific dynamics. Athenian boys, accordingly, had first one and then later two opportunities to participate in the festival and to create identities. The contests in which they took part always seem to have been restricted to Athenians; after 508/7, the boys represented their tribes, and were thus marked out as 39

Above Chapter 5.

271

272

Creating Identities: Others

citizens-to-be and members of ‘all the Athenians’. For the purposes of creating identities, the pyrrhiche was the more important event, which allowed boys both to prepare for their future when, as men, they would fight on behalf of the city and also to demonstrate their close relationship to Athena. These identities focused on the boys’ future as political participants in the strictest sense, and they were not marked out as serving the goddess. Since both the pyrrhiche and the cyclic chorus required advanced preparation, the boys involved must always have come from families which could afford to have their sons participate. The sons of the very poorest men in the tribe will never have been involved; in contrast, their fathers, at least in the 380s, could have been part of the team for the contest of ships. For the poorest sons, the boys who did take part served as exemplary individuals whom they should emulate. Since these tribal team contests disappeared in the very early third century (Table 5.16), probably as a result of the changes to the liturgical system at this time, these identities were an aspect of the Great Panathenaia only in the archaic and classical periods. After the beginning of the third century, Athenian boys’ opportunities to create identities at the festival were limited to winning an open contest and so to being announced as, for example, ‘Polystratos, the son of Damichos, the Athenian’, who won the boys’ dolichos in the late second century bc (Table 5.5). This identity is a very individual one and, in it, a boy’s status as a citizen-to-be is not salient. Rather, the contrast is with boys from other cities who also competed in the same event. The identity created here is quite different from those of Athenian boys belonging to tribal teams in the archaic and classical periods.40 Strikingly, Polystratos is the only Athenian boy who is known to have won an open athletic event in the Hellenistic or Roman period; this identity was not only very individual, but it was probably also quite rare.

Being Athenian Beardless Youths For young Athenian males, the opportunities for creating identities at the goddess’ festival were not limited to Athenian boys, because beardless youths also took part in the Great Panathenaia, and so they, too, could define what it meant for them to be Athenian. As with the boys, the focus was on the beardless youths’ status as the sons of citizens and their 40

A parallel identity must also have existed in the archaic and classical periods for Athenian boys winning these individual contests, as we can see from a boy such as Autolykos, the son of Lykon, of Athens, who was victorious in the pankration in 422 bc (Table 5.5).

Being Athenian Beardless Youths

relationship to the city.41 Since they were probably between eighteen and twenty years of age,42 they were also the city’s newest citizens, and this status seems to have opened up additional opportunities for participation in the fifth and early fourth centuries. The invention of the ephebeia in the 370s, however, caused significant changes to the ways in which beardless youths took part in the festival, and so also to their identities, which became less complex. Through taking on these various roles, beardless youths were able to show their membership in ‘all the Athenians’. In the games, competitions for beardless youths first appeared about 520 bc, and additional contests seem to have been added gradually, as we saw in Chapter 5 (Table 5.7). After the institution of the Kleisthenic system, the pyrrhiche may have been extended to include a separate competition for beardless youths, as was certainly the case in the late fifth and fourth centuries. Once they had their own event in the dance in arms, Athenian beardless youths could display their status as the sons of democratic Athenian citizens and as a newly minted citizens themselves. The weapons so necessary for this contest brought out their readiness to fight on behalf of the democratic city, while their performance also allowed them to perform their masculinity in much the same ways that they would as fully adult men in this competition. Their participation in this event emphasised their close relationship to the goddess whom they imitated in their dancing. This process also stressed their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’. Particularly in the years immediately after 508/7, many of the competitors probably came from families at the upper end of the city’s socio-economic scale, and the very poorest beardless youths would never have been able to take part in this event. In many ways, this identity is close to that created by the boys when they participated in the pyrrhiche, but it reflects the older nature of the participants and their different status within the city. Since the beardless youths represented the city’s newest citizens, they were also of an age to fight on behalf of the city. They may, therefore, have been among the armed contingents of the Athenian military. Since there is no evidence for their presence in the procession as a separate contingent, they would have marched with the other members of their demes, and they 41

42

Although the sequence boy to beardless youth/ephebe to adult male may superficially suggest an age class system, it does not meet the necessary requirements, as the duplication of beardless youth/ephebe indicates. As Kennell has shown, Athens correlates very poorly with attested age class societies and was clearly not organised along these lines; Kennell 2013 with much further bibliography. Above Chapter 5.

273

274

Creating Identities: Others

would not have been otherwise distinguished, unlike the cavalry. Nevertheless, for the beardless youths themselves, they would have been included in the military contingents, and so they would have had another opportunity to create an identity as newly made citizens, who were prepared to fight on behalf of the city. In this way, they also performed their masculinity, in much the same way as the fully adult Athenian men whom we discussed in the previous chapter. Taking part in the military contingents also allowed them to demonstrate that they were growing into a fully adult male citizen role. Since many more youths were probably among the military forces than were on the teams for the pyrrhiche, the procession would have offered them an important opportunity, which they otherwise would not have had, to create identities as fighters for the city. Those beardless youths whose families could not afford the necessary equipment, however, were excluded and did not have this opportunity. Social and economic statuses, consequently, determined which youths would and would not participate. In 402 and the years immediately afterwards, this identity would have been of considerable importance. By taking part in the festival, the youths demonstrated their support for the democratic system, while their status as the newest citizens meant that they were not old enough to have supported the oligarchic Thirty;43 consequently, unlike the adult men, the youths had no need to remake themselves as democrats. At that moment, they particularly represented the future of the city. If it is correct to imagine the beardless youths among the armed contingents of the Athenian military in the procession, then they must also have been present at the sacrifices; when the victims were offered on behalf of the entire community, their presence marked them as members of that worshipping group, but, as they stood among the armed men, this particular identity must have been secondary at that moment. The youths must also have been the recipients of sacrificial meat. For the youths, these processes would have reinforced their membership in the body of ‘all the Athenians’ and their position as the city’s newest citizens. As we saw in discussing the torch-race in the games, this event seems to have been the province of the beardless youths in the last thirty years or so of the fifth century; they may always have been the participants in this event.44 It provided yet another opportunity for the youths to take part in the festival and to show their membership in the overall group. If contestants in this competition were not also dancers in the pyrrhiche, then more 43 44

A little bit later in the fourth century, the same dynamic exists with the cavalry. Above Chapter 5.

Being Athenian Beardless Youths

youths from each tribe could be included in the games and particularly in the restricted events. Since only Athenians could take part in these competitions, the youths’ participation in them reinforced their identity as the city’s newest citizens. In this way, they contrasted with beardless youths from other cities, who had come to compete in the open events, but could only watch the Athenian beardless youths perform in the tribal contests. The torch-race may also have added another, secondary facet to the identities of the participants, because the Neoplatonist Hermeias reports in his commentary on Plato’s Phaidros that the victorious runner lit the fire for the sacrifices (τῶν ἱερῶν) of the goddess with his torch.45 Since immolating the victims to Athena required burning the necessary parts, the fire which the ephebes brought enabled the offerings to be made. In this way, they played an important role in the proceedings on the Akropolis, and they did more than simply entertain the goddess with their race. The help which the ephebes provided with the sacrifices may well have affected the identities of the racers and added a sense that they were helping with the sacred matters. They are not, however, quite serving the goddess in the ways which we have seen with other roles and their identities. For these beardless youths, this help with sacred matters allowed them to prepare for the fully fledged role of servant of the goddess which they might acquire as a fully adult Athenian man. Thus, in the period between about 506 and about 380, beardless youths had a number of opportunities for participating in the festival and for creating identities. This situation changed significantly in the 370s with the invention of the ephebeia. Apparently, at this time, the ephebes took over the torch-race, as we saw in Chapter 5. They probably also began marching as a separate contingent in the procession; certainly they were doing so by the period of 330–324. In contrast, there is no evidence that the pyrrhiche for beardless youths was transferred to the ephebes at this time. Since the ages of the ephebes and the beardless youths seem to have overlapped, these changes may not have had too large an effect on the youths in Athens between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. Nevertheless, the patterns of participation did change: before the 370s, all beardless youths (theoretically) had an opportunity to participate once in the Great Panathenaia, but, after the introduction of the ephebeia, only two classes out of every four could take part in Athena’s penteteric festival.46 With the introduction of 45

46

Herm. In Phdr. 231e (Lucarini and Moreschini 40, 16 19). Hermeias, about whom we know little, was a student contemporary of Proklos at Athens; Baltzly and Share 2018: 1, 10 11. That is the class of ephebes in its first year and the class in its second year at the time of the Great Panathenaia.

275

276

Creating Identities: Others

the ephebeia, consequently, the opportunities for beardless youths to participate as members of this class, and not as ephebes, were significantly reduced, because only the pyrrhiche seems to have been open to them. In turn, these developments affected the identities which they created: they were identified only as the newest citizens, who were prepared to fight for the city, and they no longer took part as beardless youths in the sacrifices to Athena or the torch-race. The invention of the ephebeia, accordingly, had a significant effect on the beardless youths, their participation and the identities which they created. In the period before the 370s, their position contrasts with that of the boys: there were apparently multiple opportunities for participation and so also the possibility of creating more complex identities. While, in the pyrrhiche, the identity concentrated both on their position as the newest citizens and their readiness to fight for the city, in the procession, the military aspect of their identity was dominant. Male gender and socio-economic standing in the city are also clearly involved here. In contrast, at the time of the sacrifices and the distribution of meat, membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’ was particularly salient; at this moment, they were part of the community in ways that the boys were not. Although beardless youths in the torch-race may have gained secondary elements of helping with the sacred matters, they never created primary identities as servants of the goddess, unlike Athenian women and girls. In terms of identity creation, the beardless youths seem to have been firmly fixed between Athenian boys and Athenian men, just as they also were chronologically. After the invention of the ephebeia, however, the opportunities for Athenian beardless youths were limited to the pyrrhiche, and they became much more like Athenian boys, albeit as the newest citizens of the city rather than citizens-to-be. When the tribal team contests were discontinued in the early third century, all opportunities for beardless youths to create identities ceased, unless they won open events at the games, as [Arch]ippos, the son of Euxenos, Menand[ros, the son of Askle]piad[e]s and [E]urykleides, the son of Eurykleides did in the pankration at various festivals in the first half of the second century bc (Table 5.8). The identities which they created, as we saw with the boys, would have been very individual, and so they would not have been shared with other Athenian beardless youths.

Being Athenian Ephebes The roles and identities of Athenian beardless youths in the Great Panathenaia are closely linked with those of Athenian ephebes because,

Being Athenian Ephebes

when the ephebeia was invented in the 370s, some of the roles for beardless youths were transferred to the ephebes. In this way, the new institution was incorporated into the existing festival, and its members were able to demonstrate their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’. They also had opportunities to create identities as the city’s newest citizens, who were active on her behalf. In these processes, the ephebes’ age and their male gender are clearly at stake. Unlike the boys and beardless youths, the ephebes seem to have continued to participate as a group in the festival in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. From the late third century until the late first century bc, they were also frequently honoured at the athletic games as benefactors of the city; in this way, they gained a further occasion for participation and identity-making. When the torch-race was transferred from the beardless youths to the ephebes, this decision provided the ephebes with an opportunity to demonstrate their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’. During the race itself, their activity contrasted with the inactivity of the spectators, a significant portion of whom must have been from outside Athens and Attica, and it emphasised the ephebes’ membership in the group. In addition, as with the identities of the beardless youths whom they had replaced, their actions allowed them to help with the rituals of the sacrifices and may well have added a sense of serving the goddess, although not in the fully fledged form that they would as fully adult Athenian males. Probably at this same time, the ephebes also began marching in the procession as an identifiable contingent. Since they participated by virtue of their status as youths undergoing military training, they were presumably in arms, and their group was probably placed near the armed contingents of Athenians in the procession. This context brought out the ephebes’ status as the city’s newest citizens who were prepared to fight on behalf of Athens, as good citizens should do, and their willingness to serve the democratic city. These actions emphasised their status as male Athenians and democrats, while they also enabled the ephebes to display their masculinity. By marching in the procession, the ephebes ended up on the Akropolis, and so they were also present at the sacrifices, including those offered by the whole city; subsequently, when the meat was distributed, the ephebes ought to have received shares. In this way, their membership in the sacrificial community was made explicit. Taking part in the procession allowed far more ephebes to participate than the torch-race did; indeed, it seems likely that the entire class of both years was present when the Athenians marched up to the Akropolis. As with the Athenian beardless youths, the identities of the

277

278

Creating Identities: Others

ephebes focused particularly on their position within the city in a very hard political sense, and they did not explicitly act as servants of the goddess. Tracking the activities of the ephebes after the end of the fourth century is difficult, because their honorary inscriptions generally do not record any activity at the Great Panathenaia. It seems likely that the ephebes continued to march in the procession and, in the later Hellenistic period, their participation may have been included in their inscriptions under the heading of all the processions of the city.47 For the same reason, we do not know if the ephebes continued to run in the torch-race during the Hellenistic period, as they did at other festivals; since the other tribal team contests ended in the early third century and the torch-race does not appear in any of the extant second-century victors’ lists, it was very likely no longer being held in the Hellenistic period.48 Most probably the ephebes’ contribution to the festivities was limited to their participation in the procession. Doing so allowed them to continue to create identities as the city’s newest citizens, who were prepared to fight on her behalf. As with the adult male Athenians in this period, the ephebes’ identities were affected by the city’s current political regime, and their presence in the procession identified them as supporters of the current regime, whatever exactly it was. Since the ephebeia was also voluntary in the Hellenistic period, the ephebes were disproportionately drawn from families at the top end of the socioeconomic scale, and they now only served for one year.49 Thus, only some young Athenian males aged eighteen to twenty had the opportunity to create identities at the Great Panathenaia and, as a group, they will have been less representative than their predecessors had been in the fourth century. From the Great Panathenaia of 202 until the festival of 34 bc, the ephebes had one further occasion for creating identities, because the gold crown which they had been awarded by the city was announced at the celebration’s athletic games, as well as at some other festivals of the city (Table 7.1).50 Sometimes, but not always, their kosmetes was also granted a gold crown which was announced at the Great Panathenaia, as we saw in 47 48

49

50

Above Chapter 4 with note 21. Evidently, the ephebes’ contribution to the fires for the sacrifices was not so important that the race could not be eliminated. Voluntary: above Chapter 5 note 134; one year: Perrin Saminadayar 2007: 50; G. Oliver 2007c: 175 6; Mikalson 1998: 182; Pélékidis 1962: 167 9. In the Hellenistic period, the boule and the demos regularly voted various honours, including these gold crowns, for the ephebes and often for their officers, as we know from the extant honorary decrees; for an overview of such texts, see Mikalson 1998: 181 2, 243 7; Deshours 2011: 155 7.

Being Athenian Ephebes

Chapter 6 (Table 6.1). Before 90 bc, the ephebes are usually honoured for the piety (εὐσεβείας) towards the gods, their discipline (εὐταξίας) and their philotimia towards the boule and the demos.51 After 80 bc, the ephebes were praised for ‘being disciplined and zealous in their pursuits of the finest things’ (πεποίηνται εὐταξίαι καὶ τῆι περὶ τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων σπουδῆι). Obviously, all these virtues are ones which the good ephebe ought to have; the ephebes, consequently, are really being honoured for having been good soldiers in training. Masculinity is also at stake here. The announcements of their crowns provided the ephebes with another opportunity to create identities as newly minted citizens who were ready to fight for the city. In addition, they were marked as good benefactors who were serving the city in an exemplary fashion. By the late second century, these honours seem to have been a regular feature of honorary decrees for ephebes, and two different classes were certainly both honoured at the Great Panathenaia of 114 (Table 7.1). In this way, ephebes, such as those of the archonship of Menoites in 117/6, were given an opportunity, which they otherwise would not have had, to participate in the festival. In contrast, the ephebes of the archonship of Hipparchos in 119/8, who were also honoured in 114, had been in training at the time of the previous penteteric festival in 118; now, they had a second opportunity to take part in the festivities. Although the honours reward the ephebes for their conduct in training, by the time when they were passed in the assembly, much less announced at the following Great Panathenaia, the honorands were no longer ephebes and were fully adult men. At the time of the announcement, however, they were figured as ephebes, not full citizens, and so the identities created at this moment forced them to return to their earlier identities as ephebes and the time before they were fully adult. If every class of ephebes in the later second and first centuries was honoured in this way, as our extant evidence suggests, then the process would have created a sense that they were not completely grown up until their honours had been announced at Athena’s festivities.52 The announcement, consequently, would have marked the final stage in becoming a full adult male citizen, and it would have signalled a significant change in the (former) ephebes’ identities. 51

52

Exceptions in this period are IG II3.1 1176 and 1256. SEG XV 104 has probably not been restored correctly. The honours were also announced in this period at the City Dionysia and the Eleusinia and sometimes the Ptolemaia, so this process of becoming fully adult and no longer connected with the ephebes would have required multiple announcements at different festivals at different times of the year. In the late second century and the early first century bc, the Ptolemaia appears only in restoration in IG II2 1028.49 Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 32.49; 1029.32; 1030.42.

279

280

Creating Identities: Others

In the Roman period, our only evidence for the ephebes’ participation in the festival situates them in the procession, in which Heliodoros imagines them wearing their chlamydes and crowns; they presumably were also armed.53 This description suggests that the ephebes marched as a separate (and identifiable) contingent; at this time, they seem to have been the city’s only military unit, as we saw in Chapter 4. The ephebes were further set apart from other participants by their short cloaks, which, until ad 165/6, had always been black, but, in that year, Herodes Atticus changed the colour to white.54 In at least some processions, they also wore their armour.55 Marching to the Akropolis at Athena’s festival made the ephebes present at the sacrifices, and it should have entitled them to portions of the sacrificial meat. In this way, they clearly demonstrated their membership in the group of ‘all the Athenians’, while the procession brought out their status as the city’s newest citizens, who were prepared to fight on behalf of the city and so also were displaying their masculinity; by now, this identity was part of the city’s long-standing traditions, and it went back to the inception of the institution in the fourth century bc. The connections between the ephebes and fighting for the city (and masculinity) were not limited to Athena’s festival, because they appear repeatedly throughout the ephebes’ various activities in the Roman period.56 The repeated creation of the ephebes’ identities as newly adult Athenians who were ready to fight for the city emphasised its salience and reinforced it in the context of the Great Panathenaia. As in the Hellenistic period, the participants in the ephebeia in the Roman period must have been drawn primarily, if not exclusively, from families of high social and economic rank in the city,57 and so the identity-making was also limited to this group, rather than to all Athenian males of the appropriate age. As with other identities dominated by members of high status, these ephebes may have served as exemplary individuals for those young men who, for financial and social reasons, could not take part in the ephebeia. When the ephebeia ceased to exist in the aftermath of the Herulian invasion in ad 267,58 then these young, elite Athenians lost their opportunity to participate as a group in the festival.

53

54

55 57

There is no evidence that the evidence that the ephebes fought a naumachia or engaged in boat races at the festival; Shear 2012d: 165 6; cf. Newby 2005: 179 90; contra: Follet 1976: 339 43. Philostr. VS 2.550; IG II2 2090.2 11; Newby 2005: 193 5; Follet 1976: 215; Tobin 1997: 202 4. The first Great Panathenaia when the ephebes wore white chlamydes was in ad 167. IG II2 1078.25 6, which concerns the Eleusinian Mysteries. 56 Newby 2005: 171 92. Perrin Saminadayar 2004: 94 103; Wiemer 2011: 499 518. 58 Above Chapter 4 note 16.

Subgroups and Other Residents

With the institution of the ephebeia in the 370s, the ephebes seem to have become regular participants in the Great Panathenaia, and so they were able to use the occasion to create identities for themselves as new (male) citizens of the city who were prepared to fight on her behalf. In this way, they also served the city, but this element was only made completely explicit in the Hellenistic period, when gold crowns for the ephebes were announced at the athletic games along with the honours for other benefactors of the city. The ephebes’ participation in the celebration marked them as members of the community of ‘all the Athenians’, an identity which was particularly pronounced when the sacrificial meat was distributed. Their identities focused on their relationship to the city and, as was appropriate for newly minted citizens, they were political in a very hard sense. The ephebes did not have opportunities to create identities as servants of the goddess, although the torch-race may have provided participants with some elements of this role. That they had multiple possibilities for participating and creating identities set them apart from Athenian boys and prepared them for their future as fully adult male Athenians in the festival. When they achieved that status, then they would also fully serve the goddess, as well as the city.

Subgroups of the City and Other Residents Our discussion so far has concentrated on the different identities which various residents of the city created at the Great Panathenaia as members of particular groups, Athenian women and girls, metics and their daughters and Athenian boys, beardless youths and ephebes. In some cases, these identities were not the only ones which members of these groups created, because they also represented their tribes and, at some moments, their demes. Since the subgroups involved were introduced as part of the Kleisthenic system, these identities belong only to the periods after 508/7. In contrast to Athenian adult males, other residents do not seem to have had roles as members of gene. The only exception may be the priestess of Athena Polias, who came from the Eteoboutadai, but her identity was an individual one and could not have been held by other (Athenian) women. The tribe and deme identities which residents created would have been important only at certain moments in the festival, particularly in the games and the procession, and they were probably not as salient for those involved as the identities of Athenian boy, beardless youth, ephebe and girl. Particularly for the males, their identities as members of subgroups of the

281

282

Creating Identities: Others

city reinforced the very political focus of what it meant to be an Athenian boy, beardless youth and ephebe. In the games, the programme made the Kleisthenic tribes particularly visible through the team contests. Competing in these events allowed young Athenian males to create identities not only as Athenian boys or beardless youths, but also as members of their tribes. Since the pyrrhiche was particularly prominent among the restricted competitions, participation looked ahead to the moment in the future when the performers would fight for the city. While beardless youths might have that opportunity in the near future, boys had to become adult citizens and full members of the tribe before they could do so; in this way, their performance further brought out their (increasing) masculinity. Since participants in the pyrrhiche imitated the goddess, the members of the tribes also had the opportunity to display their close relationship to the goddess, something which set them apart from all the non-Athenians present. The identities of boys and beardless youths as members of tribes, consequently, seem to map very closely on to their overall identities; for the boys, this overlap was caused by their limited participation. When the ephebeia was instituted in the 370s, and the torchrace became the province of the ephebes, they also gained an opportunity to create a tribal identity, although it did not have the military aspects of the beardless youths’ tribal identities and it may have had some overtones of service to the goddess. Since only members of Athenian tribes could compete in this contest, doing so allowed the ephebes to demonstrate that membership, as did participation in the cyclic chorus for Athenian boys. This tribal affiliation, in turn, set the ephebes and boys apart from other, non-Athenian individuals, who did not have this connection. The military emphasis of the tribal identities was probably not limited to the games, because the Athenian military was organised by tribe and by deme, and ephebic inscriptions of all periods regularly list the ephebes under these headings. It is most likely, consequently, that the ephebes were so organised in the procession.59 Before the 370s, the beardless youths should also have been so arranged, but they were probably grouped with the other members of their tribe and not marked out as a separate contingent either within the Athenian military or in the overall procession. For these groups, therefore, tribe membership was very closely linked to military service to the city, which, in turn, was closely connected with their male gender. Since these young men had just become citizens, the association had particular consequences: they were now old enough actually to 59

For this organisation, see also Chapter 3.

Subgroups and Other Residents

fight the city’s enemies, as the good (male) citizen should. The emphasis on the newness of their full citizen status would have been particularly clear for the ephebes as a separate contingent, while, for the beardless youths, it was probably perceived more at the level of the individual youth. The youths and especially the ephebes in their separate contingent contrasted with the boys, who would only perform their military service in the future and who did not (yet) have a role in the procession. The youths and ephebes should also have contrasted with the girls involved in making the peplos, who were probably organised in the procession by tribe, as they likely were in the late second century at the Little Panathenaia. This ordering would have marked the girls’ membership in the tribes via their fathers, and it would have made the tribes visible among both youths and girls just on the cusp of adulthood. The girls, however, were servants of the goddess and could not fight for the city; gender is again at issue in this identity. Since the city’s military contingents, the ephebes and the girls were ordered not only by tribe, but also (probably) by deme, they created deme identities as well in the course of the procession. For the youths and the ephebes, these identities focused on their ability to fight for the city, while, for the girls, the emphasis was on their service to the goddess. The tribe and deme identities thus mapped very closely on to each other, as well as on to the identities of Athenian beardless youths, ephebes and girls. Having these identities set these groups apart from Athenian metics and their daughters, who do not seem to have been organised in this fashion. Nevertheless, in the procession, the tribe and deme identities were probably not as salient as the identities of beardless youths, ephebes and girls. In the games, however, the tribal affiliation was more important, because it served to order the participants. The agonistic setting also allowed comparison between different tribes and ensured that only one tribe could win a particular contest. When the tribal team contests ceased to be held, at the end of the fourth century, boys and beardless youths lost the opportunity to create tribal identities in the games, and the tribes inevitably became less prominent in the overall festival. Now, comparisons between different tribes were not so easy, and the tribesmen could no longer brag about the excellence of their tribes’ teams of boys and beardless youths. The termination of these contests ought to have had important consequences for tribal identities. For the individual beardless youths, the effects were perhaps less important, because they were the right age for the ephebeia, and their tribal identity seems not to have been as salient for them as being beardless youths. The boys, in contrast, lost all opportunities to

283

284

Creating Identities: Others

create any identity at the festival, except as an individual competing in the open events. Since the ephebes and the girls probably continued to take part in the procession and to be ordered by tribe and by deme, some identities for these subgroups continued to be created in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, but they were presumably not as salient as they were between 508 and the end of the fourth century. Instead, the focus shifted to adult men, who became the important figures in creating identities for tribes and demes. Athenian boys, beardless youths, ephebes and girls, accordingly, had an important role to play in the construction of identities at the level of the tribe and the deme, especially in the classical period, and these processes were not limited to Athenian men. For these other groups, what it meant for them to be a member of their subgroup mapped quite closely on to their identities as boy, youth, ephebe and girl. For the males, the resulting identities were very political in the hard sense and looked ahead to their future roles as full (male) citizens of the city. At the level of the subgroups, they must have reinforced the importance of these groups in the running of the city. That these groups were so prominent at the Great Panathenaia served, in turn, to link the festival with the way in which the city was ruled. Between 508/7 and the end of the classical period, consequently, they marked the close association between the celebration and the democracy, a connection which was also explicit in the cult of the Tyrannicides. The roles of the tribes and demes in linking the democracy and the festivities would have been less clear after the end of the tribal team contests and when the city was not ruled by the demos. Nevertheless, tribe and deme identities continued to be made at the Great Panathenaia, but they were probably of more importance to the subgroups as a whole than to the individuals involved.

Being Athenian Colonies Opportunities to create identities at the Great Panathenaia were not limited to Athenian men and these various groups of residents, because certain non-residents, representatives of Athenian colonies, allies and, after 229, other cities, as well as foreign benefactors, also were included in these processes. As we saw in Chapter 4, the different delegations brought gifts to the goddess. Since the colonies brought Athena cows (Table 4.5), their contingents must also have received portions when the meat from the

Being Athenian Colonies

sacrifices was distributed. This process demonstrated very clearly their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’, while offering the animal allowed them to join the residents of the city in creating and maintaining reciprocal relations with the goddess. Since Athens was the mother city of her colonies, it was obviously in the colonists’ interests to ensure that she remained in the good graces of the goddess and so would prosper. That the colonists brought gifts for the goddess marked the delegations from the colonies as her servants and indicated that they had a special relationship with her, unlike other foreign individuals who had also come to her festival. Although the participation of Athenian colonies in the Panathenaia is not attested before the third quarter of the fifth century, when the colonists at Brea were required to send a cow and panoply to the goddess (Table 4.5), it was probably not a new development at this time, because such obligations seem to have existed generally in the Greek world already in the archaic period.60 Since several Athenian colonies were founded in the middle of the sixth century,61 it seems likely that they were sending contingents to the Great Panathenaia at this time. These groups presumably brought cows to be sacrificed to Athena, and so they demonstrated their relationship both to her and to their mother city. Their actions, in turn, marked them as members of the community of ‘all the Athenians’. When the Kleisthenic system was instituted in 508/7, the city with which these colonies had a relationship was now ruled by the demos, so that the community of ‘all the Athenians’ to which they belonged was also isonomic and democratic; this basic identity ought to have continued throughout the classical period. In the case of Paros in 372, the civil war which led to our preserved documents presumably had also caused a period when the city was not sending delegations to Athens, hence the inclusion of the requirement in the Athenian document (Table 4.5).62 If this assumption is correct, then the Parians had the opportunity to rebuild their relationships both with their mother city and with the goddess. In the case of the Kolophonians, who sent gifts in advance for the Great Panathenaia of 306, the political situation in Athens, which had recently become democratic again, was probably a factor in their decision.63 On this occasion, their identity involved demonstrating their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’, which was once more ruled by the demos. 60 62 63

Above Chapter 4 note 61. 61 Hansen 2004: 636. On the political circumstances, see Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 148 with further references. Kolophonians: above Chapter 4 note 72; Athens and democracy in 307: Plut. Demetr. 8.4 9.4, 10.1 2; Diod. 20.45.1 46.1; Habicht 1997: 65 8; Bayliss 2011: 102 6, 114 16.

285

286

Creating Identities: Others

When these delegations from Athenian colonies came to the penteteric festival and marched in the procession, their actions marked them as servants of the goddess and members of the celebrating community. Although theoretically colonies should have sent such contingents every four years, participation may well not have been so regular, particularly as the moment of the colony’s foundation receded into the distance. Politics both at home in the colony and at Athens probably also played a role in the frequency of participation. When these delegations did attend, they involved only a few individuals, who represented the overall colony at Athens. Since our sources are silent about how the colonists chose their contingents, we remain ignorant of how these processes fitted into the current political and social environment of the particular colony. If the city was under some form of democratic rule at the time, as seems to have been the case, for example, with Priene in 326 bc, then the majority of men voting in the assembly must have approved the decision, in this case, to send a delegation to each Great Panathenaia at Athens.64 Since the process of dispatching representatives to Athens emphasised the ties between the colony and her mother city, the men approving the decision presumably also favoured close connections with the Athenians. For the colonists, the members of the delegation ought to have been understood as exemplary individuals on whom the majority should model themselves. The identity politics which played out in Athens at the festival, however, may not have been so important at home in the colony, and these identities may not have been particularly salient in the overall package of the colonists’ identities. Nevertheless, maintaining such connections was clearly important: otherwise, the people of Priene would not have sent multiple delegations in the late fourth and at the end of the third century bc (Table 4.5). In this way, they demonstrated and maintained their membership in ‘all the Athenians’. From the Athenian perspective, the members of the contingents were also exemplary individuals and showed how good colonists in a good colony ought to behave and how they should participate in the festivals of the mother city.

Being Athenian Allies In the 420s, the delegations of colonists were not the only groups of nonresidents which took part in the procession because, from 425/4, all the 64

Priene and democracy: e.g. I.Priene 5.1 2; Rubinstein 2004: 1092.

Being Athenian Allies

allies were also required to participate, as we saw in Chapter 4. Originally, the relevant decree was apparently explicit that Athens’ colonies were the model for the allies’ participation in the festival. Consequently, the allies also created identities as servants of the goddess and members of the community of ‘all the Athenians’. These identities were generic in the sense that all allies shared in them. Certain allies, however, were singled out during the festivities and so they gained identities which were different from the generic allied identity. In the cases of Plataia and Chios, they were marked as ideal Athenian allies, which had particularly close relationships to the city and her goddess. For at least a short period in the middle of the fifth century, Erythrai also seems to have been treated differently from other allies, with consequences for the identities which her citizens created at the festival: they were shown to be distinctly less important, as well as different from other members of ‘all the Athenians’. When the Athenians required all the allies to participate in the Great Panathenaia, they were to behave just like the city’s colonies. For this reason, they also brought a co[w and panop]l[y] to the goddess (Table 4.5) and so they demonstrated both their status as servants of the goddess and their membership in the group of ‘all the Athenians’. In addition, the presence of these delegations made their membership in the Athenian alliance explicit and visible. Evidently, some allied cities were already sending delegations before 425/4, perhaps because they could also claim to be colonies of Athens or wished to make such a claim. The exact politics of the allied cities’ identities depends in part on when they first started participating in the festival. If some allies were already sending delegations in the 470s, in the years immediately after the major battles of Salamis and Plataia, then their presence could have been understood as marking a willingness to move against the Persians, who had burnt Athens. In this way, their identities would have gained an anti-Persian element which fit with the focus of the overall alliance at this time. If these delegations only began to participate after 454/3, when the treasury of the alliance was moved from Delos to Athens, then the allies’ identities may not have included this anti-Persian aspect. After 425/4, these cities were explicitly assimilated to the Athenian colonies, and this process reinforced their membership in the group of ‘all the Athenians’.65 For cities which had already been sending delegations to Athena’s festival, the result may have been to strengthen the bonds in their identities with the city and the 65

From the Athenian perspective, the process may have worked in the reverse way: since participation demonstrated membership in the restricted group of ‘all the Athenians’, some rationale was needed for the special treatment of the allies, hence their assimilation to colonies.

287

288

Creating Identities: Others

goddess, who could then be expected to look on them with greater favour in return for their gifts. Now that all cities in the alliance had to send delegations to the Panathenaia, their presence in the procession also made visible their membership in, and loyalty to, the alliance; in turn, they had an identity as a member of this group. These close links between Athens and the allied cities, which were made visible in their participation and identities, potentially had local ramifications in the individual cities, especially if neighbouring towns were not members of the Athenian alliance. If there was a local dispute, the neighbours would have to worry that Athens might intervene on behalf of the allied city, whose loyalty to Athens had been so conspicuously displayed at Athena’s festival. The identities created by the allied cities, consequently, had a potential which might reach well beyond the limits of Athens and Attica. So far, we have considered these cities as members of collective groups, but some cities were also especially singled out. As we saw in discussing the sacrifices in Chapter 4, the Plataians were specifically mentioned by name in the prayers as the beneficiaries of ‘good things’ along with the Athenians. According to Herodotos, these prayers were instituted immediately after the battle of Marathon and continued to be made in his own time.66 In this way, Plataia was singled out as an exemplary allied city from the Athenians’ point of view, and she was drawn to the attention of the goddess, while her citizens were identified as special members of the group of ‘all the Athenians’. In the immediate aftermaths of the battles of 490, 480 and 479, the reasons for these prayers would have been well known, and they may have been understood as a demonstration of anti-Persian sentiment, because Plataia had played an important role in defeating the Persians. Over time, these prayers ensured that both Athenians and their visitors continued to remember the special contributions of the Plataians to the wars against Persia. From the Plataian perspective, their participation in the festival and the special prayers on her behalf brought out the city’s especially close relationship to Athens and her goddess; men who came as part of the delegation presumably favoured maintaining these ties. In a Boiotian context, these links would have set Plataia apart from other cities, such as Thebes, and they may have implied that the Athenians would intervene in local disputes to support the Plataians, as they did in 431 and 429.67 Strikingly, Herodotos’ description suggests that these prayers continued after the destruction of Plataia in 427 and the Athenians’ grant of

66

Hdt. 6.111.2.

67

Thuc. 2.6.4, 73.1 3; cf. Thuc. 2.72.2.

Being Athenian Allies

citizenship to the survivors.68 In the context of the war against the Spartans, the special prayers for the Plataians may now have had anti-Spartan overtones, while both participants and spectators may have recalled how the Spartans had recently treated this particular polis.69 In the later fifth century, the Chians were also specifically mentioned in the prayers.70 As with the city of Plataia, Chios was marked as a particularly important polis from the Athenian perspective, and the goddess was reminded to look with especial favour on her. This process identified Chios as distinct among the allied cities so that, as with Plataia, she, too, served as an exemplary polis for the other allies;71 her citizens, likewise, were marked as special members of ‘all the Athenians’. In at least the years after 425/4, the Chians must have been sending a delegation with a cow and panoply, so that they were also assimilated to Athenian colonies, albeit one being singled out for especially positive treatment. Bringing these gifts made the Chians into servants of the goddess and allowed them to create and maintain their reciprocal relationships with Athena, while the prayers, with their specific reference to Chios, brought out their special relationship with the goddess, one which was not shared with most other allied cities. Since these identity processes required good relations between Athens and Chios, they must have ended when the Chians revolted in 412.72 Now, from an Athenian perspective, they were no longer good and obedient allies, while, on Chios’ part, there was presumably no desire to participate in the Panathenaia and to signal their close relationship to Athens; rather, it was important to indicate that Chios was independent from Athens and no longer part of her alliance. Among the various allies, the city of Erythrai also seems to have been singled out for special treatment in apparently the late 450s, as we saw in Chapter 4. When the Erythraians conveyed their grain in the procession, this gift marked them as servants of the goddess, who had a special connection with her, and also as members of the Athenian alliance. Since their gift was grain rather than a cow and panoply, they were singled out as different from the other allies and colonies, and presumably the delegation did not receive any portions when the meat from the sacrifices was 68

69 71

72

Citizenship: [Dem.] 59.104 6; M. J. Osborne 1981 3 II: 11 16. The authenticity of the document included at [Dem.] 59.104 does not affect the discussion here; on the problems, see M. J. Osborne 1981 3 II: 12 15; Kapparis 1995; Canevaro 2010. Thuc. 2.71.1 78.4, 3.52.1 68.5. 70 Above Chapter 4 note 138. Compare Eupolis’ description in his play Poleis: ‘she is Chios, a good city for she sends you warships and men whenever there is need and, for the rest of the time, she obeys well, just like a horse which does not need a whip’; Eup. fr. 246 (PCG) quoted by schol. Ar. Birds 880b. Above Chapter 4 note 138.

289

290

Creating Identities: Others

distributed. In this way, they were marked as less important than the other allies and colonies. These distinctions also affected the identities which the Erythraians created: they were less important, and their city was evidently not an exemplary ally. Although they may not have agreed with this identity which the Athenians had imposed on them, they had to conform to it. The Erythraians formed a strong contrast with the people of Plataia, who really were exemplary. For other cities at this time, Erythrai must have been an example of the consequences of revolting from the alliance and thus not following Athenian wishes.73 After seeing the delegation from Erythrai and the identities which the Athenians had imposed on them, the men from other cities may have taken comfort from their good sense in maintaining their positive relations with Athens and the goddess: there were, indeed, benefits to be being a good ally. These identities situated the different cities in relationship to Athens, and they made sense in an Athenian context; they may not have been so important at home, where relations with Athens may have played out quite differently. The identities which the Athenians imposed on the Erythraians must also have changed over time: as soon as the Athenians allowed the people of Erythrai to substitute a cow and panoply for the grain, then the city lost this imposed negative identity and her status as bad ally, and she no longer stood out from the other allied cities. This shift must have taken place by 425/4 because, at that time, all allies are imagined as bringing the same gifts for the goddess, and it may well have happened considerably before this year. When the allies sent contingents with cows and panoplies for Athena, accordingly, they also created identities for themselves as servants of the goddess, who brought her gifts. In this way, they were members of ‘all the Athenians’, and they made clear their membership in the Athenian alliance and their relationship to Athens. Not all of these cities created the same identities, however. Plataia and Chios were singled out as particularly exemplary allies and thus as models for how the good ally ought to behave, while Erythrai was treated differently from the other cities as a model of how an ally ought not to behave. All these identities were imposed by the Athenians on the allied cities, which had very little choice; consequently, these identities must be seen from an Athenian perspective rather than from the perspective of the allied cities. For cities such at Plataia and Chios, their especially positive identities were probably not problematic, and they may well have had local benefits about which we are now ignorant. The less 73

These dynamics further suggest that some allied cities, as well as colonies, were already participating in the Great Panathenaia at this time.

Being Athenian Allies

than positive identity of Erythrai, in contrast, was not likely to have been seen as an asset by her inhabitants, although it may not have been particularly important in the city’s local identity processes. The people of Erythrai could only hope that the Athenians would be willing to change the terms of their participation in the festival so that they could create more positive identities in the future. Once the Athenians decided in 425/4 that all allied cities should send a cow and panoply to the procession, then they had little choice about the terms of their participation: they could either accept the identities imposed by the Athenians or attempt to leave the league, a process which was not likely to be successful and might actually result in a worse situation, as seems to have happened to Erythrai in the middle of the century. Not participating in the Great Panathenaia and not leaving the league was not an option. Despite the imposed nature of these identities, they did emphasise the close relations between Athens and the allied cities. Since the allied cities also created and maintained their reciprocal relations with Athena, there were certainly some potential benefits to be gained from the identities which the Athenians imposed on them. As soon as significant numbers of Ionians were taking part in the Great Panathenaia, whether as Athenian colonies or allies, it became possible for them to use the occasion to create identities as Ionian cities, as well as to demonstrate their relationships to Athens.74 Since Athens claimed to be the mother city of all the Ionian cities,75 an Ionian identity would not have eliminated Athens from the process, and it still would have involved positioning cities in relationship to their (putative) mother city. Nevertheless, when multiple Ionian cities came together at the Great Panathenaia, their presence together would have emphasised what they had in common, namely their Ionian heritage, and they may also have been distinguished by their Ionian dialect. In this way, participating in the festival could have been an opportunity to display their Ionianness, much as Thucydides’ description of the Delia suggests once happened at that celebration.76 Focusing on Ionian status, rather than the city’s relationship to Athens, was likely to have been more salient in the city’s overall identities and so more useful domestically. Obviously, what it meant to be Ionian will have varied from city to city, and it will have depended on local circumstances, which lie beyond our focus on the Great Panathenaia. Once Ionian identities were in play, members of the city’s delegation ought to have been

74 76

Compare Morris 2009: 139, 153 4. Thuc. 3.104.3 4.

75

E.g. Meiggs 1972: 294 8 with further references.

291

292

Creating Identities: Others

understood as exemplary individuals for the rest of the city’s inhabitants in much the same ways as the contingents from Athenians colonies.

Being Other Cities As our evidence indicates, these delegations of non-Athenians were restricted to Athenian colonies and allies until about 229 bc, when the Athenians decided to invite cities which previously had no Athenian connections to send contingents to the Great Panathenaia.77 Since these other cities had to provide a sacrificial animal to be offered to Athena, they now had the opportunity to demonstrate their service to the goddess and so also their links with the city of Athens. When these delegations came to Athens and took part in the procession, they created identities as servants of Athena, by now an extremely familiar identity which we have seen repeatedly created by many different groups. The cities showed that they (now) had a special relationship with the goddess and they were included as members of ‘all the Athenians’. Their membership in the group was emphasised again when the animals were given to the goddess and, subsequently, when the meat was distributed to their representatives. Their inclusion in the festival marks an important development which had ramifications not only for the members of the delegations and their cities, but also for the community of ‘all the Athenians’, as we shall see in due course. When these measures were first implemented, some, perhaps many, cities must have been participating for the first time as members of the sacrificial community celebrating the festival. When they did so, their delegations were protected by the truce announced by the spondophoroi, as we saw in Chapter 4, and this truce had to be acknowledged by the communities through which their contingents travelled even if they were not also participating in Athena’s festivities. In this way, the identities which the people of cities such as Gonnoi created had regional ramifications and were not limited to their local communities. That these cities could take part in this way marked an important change in the rules about participation, and so also in the ways in which identities could be created at the Great Panathenaia.78 These cities, however, do not seem to have been 77 78

Above Chapter 4. It is very important to note here that the name of the festival, Panathenaia or ‘all Athenian’, does not change about 229, nor do the stories which we discussed in Chapter 2. Thus, the celebration remains that of ‘all the Athenians’, and it retains its existing politics of identity.

Being Other Cities

considered exactly equal to other cities which had long-standing connections with Athens and the festival, such as Priene and Kolophon. These distinctions are visible in about 200 bc in an Athenian decree which originally must have honoured the people of Priene and their delegation for bringing offerings to the goddess.79 The Athenians acknowledged that the people of Priene were ‘friend[s and kinsmen] from ancient times’, and they apparently described their offerings, which ought to have been more than an animal to be sacrificed to the goddess. The section concerning the honours is mostly not preserved, but it must have included something which was announced, as well as praising the members of the delegation. These terms contrast with the decree authorising the spondophoroi to announce the truce of the Panathenaia: the theorodokoi in the cities proclaiming the truce are to be made proxenoi, representatives, of the Athenians and to have whatever else seems good to the demos of the Athenians.80 These terms are generic, so that no city is singled out, and there are no references to previous relations between Athens and the cities. Similarly, the decree of Gonnoi which precedes the Athenian document is concise, and it also makes no reference to previous friendship or kinship.81 This particular business appears to be routine and not worthy of special consideration. Despite the new inclusiveness at the Great Panathenaia after 229, the Athenians do not seem to have been treating all cities the same way: they were extending a warmer welcome, and more generous subsequent honours, for cities which claimed kinship with them. Very likely these distinctions were not limited to decrees and the boule and the assembly. They probably also played out both in the order of the contingents from different cities in the procession and then when the prayers were said at the time of the sacrifices, two contexts which facilitated comparison and contrast between different cities, their delegations and their offerings for the goddess. In this way, the other cities were now included in the community of ‘all the Athenians’, but they were marked as recent additions to the group, who were not ‘friend[s and kinsmen] from ancient times’. These distinctions, in turn, must have affected how these identities played out at home and how salient they were in the city’s overall

79 81

What has changed, presumably by decision of the council and the assembly, is the definition of who may be a member of this group. If the Athenians had not made this change, then the Great Panathenaia could not have been included in the ‘crowned games’, which were expanding significantly at just this time, and they would not have continued to attract so distinguished an international audience; ‘crowned games’: above Chapter 4 note 75. IG II3.1 1239 I.Priene 45. 80 IG II3.1 1145.25 35 Gonnoi II 109.25 35. IG II3.1 1145.1 9 Gonnoi II 109.1 9.

293

294

Creating Identities: Others

package of identities. Most probably they were more important for a city like Priene and less important for a city like Gonnoi. The years after 229 bc, consequently, marked a distinct change in the politics of participation and identity at the Great Panathenaia, because the Athenians were now inviting other cities, with which they had no previous alliances or other links, to send delegations with sacrifices for Athena. When these contingents came to the festival, their participation created identities as servants of the goddess and members of the community of ‘all the Athenians’. Since these cities were creating connections with Athens for the first time, they were not the equals of the colonies and other cities claiming to be ‘friend[s and kinsmen] from ancient times’, and these distinctions would also have been reflected in their identities. Indeed, in the context of the celebration, cities like Priene may well have played up the long-standing nature of their connections with Athens as a way of differentiating themselves from the newly participating cities like Gonnoi.82 Under these conditions, demonstrating friendship and kinship from ancient times would have been even more important than it had been when only cities with such connections could take part in the Great Panathenaia.

Being Foreign Benefactors The non-residents included in the Great Panathenaia were not limited to these delegations which brought animals and other gifts for Athena, because the Athenians also rewarded some of their foreign benefactors with gold crowns which were to be announced at the athletic games of the Panathenaia (Table 7.2). As with the Athenian benefactors so honoured (Table 6.1), the crowns were also to be proclaimed at other festivals in the city, particularly the new tragedies of the City Dionysia and the athletic competitions at the Eleusinia and the Ptolemaia. In the period before about 229, crowns to be announced at the Great Panathenaia were only voted in years immediately preceding the penteteric festivities; in this way, they were analogous to the crowns for Athenian benefactors, which we discussed in Chapter 6. After about 229, the crowns could be awarded in any year, with the announcement to be made at the next Great Panathenaia, which could be more than three years away when the necessary decree was 82

For communities using difference as a way to separate themselves from their very similar neighbours, see S. Harrison 2006: 59 60, 99, 101, 134 47.

Being Foreign Benefactors

passed. Many foreign benefactors were not rewarded with gold crowns proclaimed at the festivals, but they were given lesser crowns and other, less significant rewards. As with the citizen benefactors, the foreign benefactors who did receive this honour represented individuals who had served the city particularly well and so were now being rewarded with this special honour at the penteteric festival. This process marked them out as particularly exemplary individuals, on whom other potential foreign benefactors should model themselves. In this way, the honorands had the opportunity to create identities for themselves and to demonstrate their membership among ‘all the Athenians’. Although these honours are typical of the third and second centuries bc at Athens, the earliest attested gold crowns awarded to foreign benefactors were voted in 347/6 bc for Spartokos and Pairisades, the kings of the Kimmerian Bosporos, and their brother Apollonios (Table 7.2). These crowns are unusual in that the decree envisions them being awarded on a regularly recurring basis; in return, the honorands will dedicate them to Athena. As the text makes clear, the Athenians were extending the rewards granted to the father and grandfather of Spartokos and Pairisades, the previous rulers of the kingdom. It also indicates that their father Leukon had been receiving gold crowns at the Great Panathenaia. Consequently, the announcement of these crowns at the penteteric games in 346 bc was not a new development. When these crowns were presented, the honorands were shown to be andres agathoi or ‘good men’ towards the demos of the Athenians, as the decree indicates.83 In this way, their zeal in serving the city was displayed on a regular basis. Athenians, but probably not their visitors, would have known that the kings were important suppliers of grain to the city.84 The announcement process constructed them as good benefactors of the city; indeed, they were so good that they received crowns every four years!85 In this way, they were also incorporated into the body of ‘all the Athenians’. Since Spartokos and Pairisades dedicated their crowns to Athena, they also had the opportunity to (re)create and maintain reciprocal relations with the goddess, while the actual process demonstrated their special relationship to her. This relationship set Spartokos and Pairisades apart from other foreign benefactors and presumably stemmed from the citizenship which the Athenians had originally awarded 83 84

85

IG II3.1 298.13 17. Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 322 and M. J. Osborne 1981 3 III IV: 43 4, both with further references. These honours presumably continued until the end of the honorands’ lives; for various proposed dates, see Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 322; M. J. Osborne 1981 3 III IV: 42.

295

296

Creating Identities: Others

to their grandfather and then reconfirmed for their father and themselves.86 The identities which they created at the Great Panathenaia, consequently, were distinctly individual ones, which would have been shared only with other male members of their family. In contrast to the Bosporan kings, the foreign benefactors in the Hellenistic period, whether individuals or cities, were only granted crowns which were announced at a single festival (Table 7.2). The award made clear their good will towards the Athenians and marked them as especially zealous on behalf of the city: they were clearly exemplary benefactors on whom others should model themselves. The process also displayed the benefactors’ relationships to the city and showed that the city rewarded her important benefactors appropriately.87 Since the crowns were announced at Athena’s festival, the honorands were marked as members of ‘all the Athenians’, a status which at least some of them would not otherwise have had. Unlike the Bosporan kings, these honorands created identities which focused only on the honorands’ relationship to the Athenians, and they did not also act as servants of the goddess. In two cases, that of the honorand of IG II3.1 1218, whose name is not preserved, and the people of Chrysaorean Antioch, the grant included citizenship (Table 7.2). Thus, in the future, these honorands had further possibilities open to them in terms of creating identities at the Panathenaia, and they could act (potentially) as servants of the goddess.88 By announcing the crowns of important foreign benefactors at the athletic games of the Great Panathenaia, the Athenians created an opportunity for including more non-residents in the community of ‘all the Athenians’ and for allowing them to create identities at Athena’s festival. They showed themselves as important benefactors of the city and provided a model of how such individuals should behave. The identities of benefactors, consequently, focused on their relationship to the city and, except in special circumstances, did not mark them as servants of the goddess. That the city chose to honour her very important benefactors in an 86 87

88

Dem. 20.30; IG II3.1 298.20 4; cf. 870.8 16; M. J. Osborne 1981 3 III IV: 41 4. Indeed, inscribed decrees regularly cite this dynamic as the reason for the honours being awarded; e.g. IG II2 657.50 2 IG II3.1 877.50 2; 677.7 8 IG II3.1 1034.7 8; 682.64 6 IG II3.1 985.64 6; 956.22 4; IG II3.1 1292.38 41; SEG XXVIII 60.83 6 IG II3.1 911.83 6; Agora XVI 310.37 8; for further examples, see J. Miller 2016: 395 420, 429 32. On the purpose(s), cf. Dem. 20.64; for the larger issues involved, see Sickinger 2009: 91 4, 98; Lambert 2011. That benefactors could, indeed, act on their citizenship and create identities as Athenians at the Great Panathenaia is demonstrated by the Ptolemies and Attalids who won tribal hippic races between 182 and 162 bc; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.40 2, 55 6, 84 91; 2316.44 6; SEG XLI 115 col. I.37 8, 47 8, col. III.21 4, 31 3; Shear 2007c.

The Identities of Other Residents and Non-Residents

international setting showed that she knew how to reward those nonresidents who had served her well: now, they would serve as inspiration for other men, while the honorands themselves would hopefully be encouraged to continue to be active on behalf of Athens. Since very few individuals are actually attested as receiving these honours, the identities which the process created operated at the level of the individual and were not shared with many other people. As with the other identities for non-residents, they were imposed on the benefactors by the Athenians, who chose exactly which rewards to bestow on specific individuals. If the honorands were not satisfied with the identities which they gained in this process, then they could choose not to participate and even not to help the city at all. If, however, they refrained from serving the city, then they would not be included in the body of ‘all the Athenians’.

The Festival and the Identities of Other Residents and Non-Residents As this discussion has brought out, the processes of creating identities at the Great Panathenaia were not limited to adult male Athenians, and they included both a considerable range of other residents of the city and also various groups of non-residents, who all had opportunities for displaying what their particular status entailed. Their identities fall into two groups: Athenian women and girls and metics and their daughters all created identities which focused on their service to the goddess,89 as did the contingents from colonies, allies and other cities; in contrast, Athenian boys, beardless youths and ephebes constructed ones concentrating on their service to the city, as did the foreign benefactors, and they did not explicitly serve the goddess. The identities of the Athenian boys, beardless youths and ephebes were also closely linked to political participation in the city. The identities of the Athenian children and youths were clearly divided by gender, and they looked ahead to their future roles as adults, as did the identities of the metic girls carrying hydriai; age was also a factor in these processes. The city’s tribes and demes were represented too, especially between 508/7 and the end of the fourth century, but these identities appear to have been less important than those of the other groupings of the residents. The activities of all these residents and non89

With the exception of the metic girls carrying parasols and stools, who only served the goddess indirectly. In their case, their civic status as the daughters of metics was also important.

297

298

Creating Identities: Others

residents also demonstrated their membership in the corporate body of ‘all the Athenians’. Performing all these different identities created expectations about what it meant to be a member of the particular group involved, but fulfilling what was expected could only be done by participating in this festival, so that these processes reinforced each other. These various identities share a number of features in common. In contrast to those of the adult Athenian males, they are relatively uncomplex, and they would only have been visible at particular moments in the overall festivities. The multiplicity of different groups encouraged comparison and contrast between them and other contingents at the festival. Focusing on these different identities brings out their lack of complexity. There were only two basic identities for these groups: either they were servants of the goddess or they were citizens or citizens-to-be of the city. Athenian women and girls and metics and their daughters belonged to the former group,90 as did the colonies, allies and eventually the other cities, while young Athenian males were members of the latter, as were the foreign benefactors. These two different identities were quite distinct, and it was not possible for members of any of these groups to acquire both of them at the same time. The differences between them affected the tribe and deme identities which some of these groups also created. Thus, while Athenian girls did display tribe and deme affiliations (of their fathers), they did not have the political aspects of the parallel identities for young Athenian males. All these identities are strikingly lacking in complexity; as such, they contrast with the identities of adult Athenian males, which are distinguished by their complexity and their multiplicity. For both other residents and non-residents of the city, such multiple identities and the resulting complex overall identity were simply not a possibility. This lack of multiplicity, in turn, brings out the surprisingly fixed natures of these identities: during the course of the celebration, they did not change. This fixity reflects the imposed nature of the identities, which were originally created by the male citizens who organised the celebration; consequently, there were no ways for the other residents and non-residents to modify them. They could either accept the identities imposed on them and participate accordingly or reject the identities and not take part at all in the festivities. For the colonies and later also for the allies, refusing to participate was not realistically a possibility, because doing so would have repudiated their positions as colonies or allies of the city. Although their identities constructed them as servants of the goddess, this process of serving her also defined these 90

With the partial exception of the metic girls carrying parasols and stools.

The Identities of Other Residents and Non-Residents

colonies’ and allies’ relationships to the city, which could be exceptionally close, as the cases of Plataia and Chios show. For foreign benefactors, not accepting the identity created by the Athenians also meant not participating in the festival and, indeed, choosing not to act on behalf of the city in the first place. Although these identities were fixed, they were not equally visible throughout the festival. Instead, they appeared only at certain moments in the proceedings, primarily in the procession and the games. For Athenian women and girls and metics and their daughters, their moment of visibility was in the procession, as it also was for the colonists, allies and later the other cities, hence the emphasis on their identities as servants of the goddess. When the procession had reached the Akropolis and the altar, however, these Athenians and metics faded out of view completely and became part of the crowd. In contrast, the contingents from the colonies, allies and other cities reappeared again at the moment when their sacrifices were offered to the goddess; since they brought sacrificial animals, these groups must have become visible again when the meat was distributed. The Athenian women who were priestesses had a slightly different visibility. Some of them may perhaps have been part of the procession,91 but their big moment was at the sacrifices and when the other gifts were offered to the goddess. Athenian girls had another moment of visibility during the pannychis, but their role did not change: they were still serving (and entertaining) the goddess. In contrast, foreign benefactors and young Athenian males had a different pattern of visibility, which reflected their service to the city. The benefactors were visible only at the athletic games, when their crowns were announced; otherwise, they were unexceptional and simply part of the undifferentiated crowd of spectators.92 For the young Athenian males, their pattern of visibility correlated with their identities. Boys were only visible in the games at selected tribal competitions. Since a limited number of contests were open to them, the introduction of the cyclic chorus significantly increased their visibility. At other times, however, they remained invisible, and they never had a position in the procession. Once 91

92

Only Himerios in the ad 370s attests to the presence of priestesses in the procession, while the band cup in the Niarchos Collection (Fig. 4.5) suggests that the priestess of Athena Polias waited in the sanctuary to receive the procession; Himer. Or. 47.13 (Colonna). The roles of the priestesses need not have stayed the same over the whole history of the festival. The people of Chrysaorean Antioch form a slight exception, because their honours include proedria or front row seats ‘at all the games which the city puts on’; IG II3.1 1178.24 6. They would have had a greater visibility at the games than other foreign benefactors. Of course, they did get citizenship, unlike most other such benefactors (Table 7.2).

299

300

Creating Identities: Others

the tribal team contests were discontinued in the early third century, the boys became completely invisible and were not included in the festival at all, except as competitors in the open events . . . if they had sufficient talent, economic resources and time to prepare. The beardless youths and the ephebes had a slightly different pattern of visibility. As long as teams continued to compete in the pyrrhiche and the torch-race, these events in the games made them distinctly visible. They then appeared again in the procession, but not with equal visibility. The beardless youths were probably included in their tribal military units, and so they did not particularly stand out as members of their specific group. In contrast, the ephebes had their own separate contingent and, in the Roman period until about ad 267 at least, they seem to have been distinguished by their cloaks. When the procession reached the altar, both groups faded into the undifferentiated mass of participants in the sanctuary. They probably reappeared again when the meat from the sacrifices was distributed. When the ephebes began being honoured with a gold crown announced at the athletic games, in the very late third century (Table 7.1), they gained yet another opportunity for visibility. In comparison to the other residents and nonresidents, the ephebes were set apart by their greater prominence, which reflects their (political) status as the city’s newest citizens, who would soon become fully adult male members of the community. Their identities at the Great Panathenaia, consequently, mirror an important part of the complex full male Athenian identity, which we discussed in the previous chapter, and they have clearly been affected by the expectations of how good citizens should behave.93 That the various identities for other residents and non-residents became visible during the procession and/or in the games encouraged comparison and contrast between the different groups discussed here, as well as with adult male Athenians and non-Athenian visitors. In the procession, the variety of items carried by the different groups, such as the kanephoroi, the skaphephoroi and the metics’ daughters, encouraged comparing and contrasting the individuals fulfilling these roles. That all the girls, both Athenian and metic, were about the same age and ready to be married would further have encouraged comparisons between them. As we saw earlier, there was also a contrast between different metic daughters, because they did not all carry the same item or create quite the same identities. Especially for the metic daughters carrying stools and parasols, there was 93

As have the identities for Athenian boys, but evidently these expectations were not able to keep the boys’ pyrrhiche on the programme after the beginning of the third century.

The Identities of Other Residents and Non-Residents

also an obvious contrast between them and the kanephoroi. Among the Athenian daughters, there would have been a distinction as well between the kanephoroi, who alone were probably followed by metic girls, the other girls with sacred objects and the girls involved with making the peplos. Comparison was also possible with the various different groupings of Athenian men and, after the institution of the ephebeia, the contingent of ephebes, who, in the Roman period at least, were marked out by their cloaks, black before ad 165/6, but subsequently white. Comparing the various groups made clear the differences not only between their roles, but also between their identities: the girls, both Athenian and metic, and the metics themselves all were servants of the goddess, but the ephebes were the newest citizens for the city and prepared to fight on her behalf. These different identities, in turn, mapped on to the quite different political roles of these groups at Athens, and the contrast brings out the ways in which the ephebes were displaying their masculinity and preparing to become adult male citizens of the city. Contrasts also existed between the delegations from the non-resident colonies, allies and eventually the other cities and the groups of residents, such as the gene, demes and tribes, which were also bringing sacrifices to the goddess. That the colonies and the allies brought panoplies, while the other groups did not, further differentiated between the various delegations. Since each colony and ally had produced her own panoply, these gifts would not have been completely uniform in appearance. Those differences would have impelled further comparisons and contrasts between different suits of armour and also between the groups bringing them to the goddess. After 229 bc, the contingents from other cities, which only brought sacrificial animals, contrasted with cities such as Priene, whose people were ‘friend[s and kinsmen] from ancient times’ and clearly brought more than a sacrificial victim, even though we no longer know exactly what the gifts were (Table 4.5). These non-resident delegations also contrasted with other groups, which bore various sacred items or participated as part of the Athenians’ military forces. The variety of items which they carried brought out the different statuses of the bearers: the contingents of non-residents had come to Athens specifically for the festival, but the other groups resided in the city on a regular and/or permanent basis. When these various groups marched to the Akropolis, their actions contrasted with the spectators who watched them processing. For spectators resident in Athens, who had made a conscious choice to go out and watch, the resident participants in the procession served as exemplary individuals on whom they should model their behaviour, and they made

301

302

Creating Identities: Others

it clear what it meant to perform a specific role and so to create the associated identity. If they had taken part in the procession at a previous Great Panathenaia, they could also remember their own earlier participation and so also the identities which they had created at the time, and which were now an integral part of individual identities. As soon as significant numbers of Athenian women and metics were involved in the proceedings, spectators from these groups had the potential in the future to participate themselves. Similarly, boys could look ahead to when they would be part of the Athenian military forces either as beardless youths or, in the 330s and 320s, as ephebes.94 Watching the procession would have played a part in their growing into these roles and then also into being an Athenian man. Once significant numbers of Athenian women were involved, spectating for Athenian girls would also have played a part in developing into that role. For visitors who were not resident in Athens or Attica, the situation was different: their lack of action contrasted with the movement of the contingents in the procession. Unlike the other residents and nonresidents, they were neither serving the goddess nor prepared to fight for the city as newly minted citizens; instead, they were marked as not being part of the community of ‘all the Athenians’ to which the members of the procession all belonged. For participants in the procession, the contrast between their movement and the inaction of the (non-resident) spectators emphasised their membership in the corporate group which was honouring the goddess. The format of the games also encouraged comparison and contrast in a variety of ways. Since the boys, beardless youths and ephebes all competed in events restricted to members of Athenian tribes, a clear distinction existed between their actions in these contests and those of their nonresident peers, who could only take part in the open events; during the tribal contests, they had to sit and to watch the Athenians perform. Since the participants all represented their tribes, the competitions also facilitated comparison between the different teams and the tribes which they represented. Adult tribesmen had an opportunity to see how the younger generations were doing and to decide whether they were going to live up to the standards of their own performances. Thus, these contests also provided the tribesmen who had once competed in these contests at 94

Aristotle’s description of the situation after the reforms of Epikrates suggests that participation in the ephebeia was the norm rather than the exception; Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.1 2; Rhodes 1981: 503. The reforms of Epikrates probably date to 335/4: above Chapter 4 note 19. On the issue of whether the thetai participated in the ephebeia at this time, see Kennell 2013: 19 24 and Burckhardt 1996: 33 43, both with further references.

The Identities of Other Residents and Non-Residents

a younger age with an opportunity to look back to their participation and to remember their experiences and the identities which had been created. Little Athenian boys were given models for the proper standards of behaviour and markers for their development: if they followed them, when they were old enough, they, too, would be ready to represent their tribes in these competitions. These tribal competitions bring out particularly clearly how important spectating was in creating these identities, both in the present and especially in the future. The athletic games also offered an opportunity to compare and contrast the city’s different benefactors, particularly when multiple individuals were honoured in the same year. In 194, for example, both King Pharnakes and Queen Nysa and the ephebes of Sositeles were so rewarded, as were a foreign benefactor, Ale[x - - - - -], a hipparchos of the city and perhaps a class of ephebes in 186 (Tables 6.1, 7.1–2). In such circumstances, comparison between honorands was an obvious strategy, while the process brought out their different identities, statuses and relationships to the city. For the foreign benefactors, there was a comparison at the athletic games between themselves and their honours and the competitors in the open events, who came from many different places. The latter watched the former be honoured, but then the former watched the latter compete. These different actions and the various moments of watching brought out the distinct relationships which these groups had to the community of ‘all the Athenians’. Only the foreign benefactors had a close relationship to the city of Athens, which was made visible by their honours and their announcement. In these processes of constructing identities for the other residents and the non-residents, accordingly, comparison and contrast played a crucial role: they allowed distinctions to be made between different groups, but they also brought out what they had in common, that they were servants of the goddess, or they were preparing to fight on behalf of the city, or they had otherwise benefited the city. For all the groups, their activity and movement contrasted with the passivity of the non-resident visitors, who watched them either in the procession or in the games and could never take part actively. This contrast brings out the membership of the participants in the community of ‘all the Athenians’, as well as the lack of membership of the non-resident visitors. Since these various groups were not visible at all moments during the Great Panathenaia, the composition of this community was itself not stable, and it changed during the course of the festival. As we shall see, visibility in the celebration and membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’ correlated closely. With their limited visibility, the

303

304

Creating Identities: Others

other residents and non-residents contrasted with the Athenian males, who appeared repeatedly and who formed the core of the community of ‘all the Athenians’.

The Community of ‘All the Athenians’ When all of these different participants, Athenian males, other residents and non-residents, took part in the penteteric festivities, they undertook different roles which enabled them to create identities for themselves. These positions also identified the participants as members of ‘all the Athenians’, the community which was collectively celebrating the Great Panathenaia. Participating in the festival, consequently, provided individuals with an additional identity as members of this group, while their activities served to constitute the community itself. As we shall see, the composition of this overall group was not stable over the course of the festival, so that it was formed differently at different moments. The procession and the sacrifices were particularly important points for defining who was and who was not part of this community. Although many individuals were included in ‘all the Athenians’, they were not all equally important: different individuals occupied disparate positions within the overall group. At the same time, the existence of this community facilitated comparison and contrast not only between individuals within the group, but also between ‘all the Athenians’ and visitors and competitors from elsewhere, who had come to Athens for the festivities, but were not members of the celebrating community. How individuals related to the group of ‘all the Athenians’, consequently, was instrumental in determining whether individuals did or did not have an identity as an Athenian. Since the name of the festival means ‘all Athenian’, taking part in it identified an individual as a member of the community of ‘all the Athenians’ which was celebrating the occasion. As we have seen in the preceding chapters, not all participation was the same, and competing in the open events in the games did not identify a man or a boy as a member of the group. Instead, individuals needed to take part in the restricted elements such as the procession, the sacrifices, the tribal contests in the games and presumably also the ill-attested pannychis. Only in this way could they demonstrate their membership in this community. Through the close links between the festival and the name of the city, being a member of ‘all the Athenians’ also mapped on to the group of individuals who resided in the polis or, in the case of colonies, could be thought to have once lived there.

The Community of ‘All the Athenians’

Since they shared their collective ethnic with the goddess, they were also marked out through their close relationship to her, although, for some individuals, this relationship was considerably closer than for others. In about 229 bc, when the Athenians began to invite other cities, which did not have previous connections with their polis, to send a delegation with a sacrificial animal for the goddess, the composition of the community of ‘all the Athenians’ also changed. Now, it was possible for many more cities to take part in the important elements of the procession and the sacrifices, so that the celebrating community became larger and more diverse, and it was no longer synonymous with the group of those residing in Athens. Distinctions were apparently made within the body of ‘all the Athenians’, as we have seen: the people of Priene’s status as ‘friend[s and kinsmen] from ancient times’ probably played out in the prayers and sacrifices, while some of the prayers were most likely addressed on behalf of the boule and the demos and children and women.95 In the procession, it is possible to imagine distinctions being made between members of the other cities, who only offered sacrificial animals for the goddess, groups from cities of ‘friend[s and kinsmen] from ancient times’, who brought other dedications in addition to their victims, and residents of Athens, who performed a variety of other roles. Under these circumstances, the individual tribal competitions gained added prominence, because participating in them became a way of demonstrating one’s status as a quintessential Athenian citizen, as we saw in Chapter 5. In this way, male citizens were set apart from other members of the overall celebrating community, and they were located at its very centre. Although the overall community of ‘all the Athenians’ appeared repeatedly during the course of the Great Panathenaia, its members were not equally visible, and individuals from high social and economic strata were always over-represented; the composition of the group clearly shifted and changed during the festival. The community was most inclusive at the time of the procession, but it still did not include all members: as we have seen, boys had no place at all, and beardless youths were probably only incorporated within the larger grouping of the units of the Athenian military.96 When the sacrifices were being offered to the goddess, all members of the procession stood in the sanctuary and thus were identified collectively as the worshippers of the goddess, but they were not all equally visible. Visibility depended on exactly which animals were being immolated at 95 96

Above Chapter 4. And some residents of the city were never included in the community, particularly adult metic women, metic boys and slaves.

305

306

Creating Identities: Others

which moment, because groups not actually involved in the process of sacrificing faded into the background. When the meat was then distributed, only some groups received portions. At that time, the other groups, such as the Athenian women and girls, the metics and their daughters and Athenian boys, were excluded from the community of ‘all the Athenians’. In contrast, during the pannychis, the community was constituted by Athenian females and especially Athenian girls, while the other groups slipped away into the darkness. The situation changed again at the games; indeed, during the open events, the community itself faded from view, and there was finally space for (some) non-members to do something other than simply spectate. When the tribal contests were held, however, the community of ‘all the Athenians’ came back into view, and non-members were once again relegated to their seats. At this time, only the participants in the competitions were identified as members, and other groups in the community were not included. Who exactly participated was also not stable over time: before the institution of the ephebeia, the contestants were Athenian men, beardless youths and boys, but afterwards they included the ephebes as well. In contrast, in the second quarter of the second century bc, only Athenian men took part. When the tribal contests ceased to be part of the programme in any form, their demise affected the community of ‘all the Athenians’, which now became significantly less exclusive. Of course, in the Roman period, if other cities were no longer sending delegations, as seems possible, then the procession and sacrifices would still have seemed to be exclusive, as they had been in the period before 229 bc. Since the visibility of the community of ‘all the Athenians’ changed and shifted over the course of the multi-day festival, the composition of the group itself was also unstable and subject to change. These circumstances, together with the variable participation, meant that ranking was important: not all members of the community were equal. Repeated participation, as was the case of Athenian males, led to high ranking within the community and a location at the centre of the group. In contrast, limited participation, as with Athenian boys, caused a low ranking and a relatively peripheral position in the community. The boys’ lack of importance for the overall group is brought out by their history in the festival: when their tribal contests were discontinued, apparently no effort was made to include them in some other way. Instead, they were now permanently marked as not part of the group. In contrast, since Athenian beardless youths overlapped closely in age with the ephebes, they did not lose all opportunities to take part in the festival and to demonstrate their membership in the

The Community of ‘All the Athenians’

community, although they did so as ephebes and not as beardless youths. Differences in participation also brought out disparities in rank within the group.97 For example, the metic girls who served as hydriaphoroi were identified as servants of the goddess, but the other metic girls who carried stools and parasols were not, and so they had a lesser rank within the group in relationship both to the hydriaphoroi and to the kanephoroi whom they served. This last difference, in turn, brought out the distinctions in their civic status: the kanephoroi were the daughters of citizens, but the metic girls were not. Differences in rank are also visible among the non-residents: Plataia and Chios had a higher position than other allied cities, while, in the mid 450s, Erythrai had a lower one. Similarly, in the later third century, the people of Priene apparently had a different status than the people of Gonnoi. Consequently, although the community of ‘all the Athenians’ was broadly constructed, the members were not equally important and did not all hold the same rank within the group. Since the composition of the community was unstable, it had to be repeatedly constructed both over the course of a single festival and over the course of the decades of an individual member’s life. This process was done through (repeated) participation. Taking part quite literally made the community visible, but it also marked out the boundaries between the participants, and how they participated, and the visitors who watched and did not take part. These non-members could not cross the boundaries of the community except by decision of the Athenian boule and demos, as the decrees for the foreign benefactors demonstrate. In about 229 bc, when the other cities were first invited to send delegations, this decision must have been authorised in exactly the same way.98 The procession and the sacrifices were particularly important moments for these processes, because they offered many opportunities for different individuals to take part and so to show their membership in the community. Indeed, as we have been seeing over the course of the previous chapters, the procession was the most inclusive moment in the entire Great Panathenaia and the point when the community of ‘all the Athenians’ was at its broadest. While these general processes of creating the worshipping group continued throughout the festival’s history, the community itself was not stable, and changed over time. Particularly important moments for its development include the time of the Kleisthenic reforms, which had 97

98

These distinctions could then be exploited by authors and orators for their own purposes, as is likely to have been the case with Deinarchos’ speech against Agasikles, with its comparison of the ephebes and the skaphephoroi; above Chapter 4 note 17. Compare IG II3.1 1145.18 25 Gonnoi II 109.18 25.

307

308

Creating Identities: Others

a very significant impact on many aspects of the celebration, the invention of the ephebeia in the 370s, the demise of the tribal team contests in the early third century bc, the developments around 229 bc and especially the invitations to other cities to send delegations and the termination of the individual tribal contests probably late in the first century bc. These last two developments marked the progressive opening up of the festival, and so the community of ‘all the Athenians’, to groups which had previously been excluded, but, in the Roman period, this openness may no longer have existed in actuality. With the end of the ephebeia after about ad 267, the community became less inclusive than it had been before. The community of ‘all the Athenians’, as well as the identities of its members, clearly reflected not only the history of celebration, but also institutional and social changes in other parts of the city. Creating the group of ‘all the Athenians’ and ranking its members relied on comparison and contrast. Position within the group required comparing different members and their roles, a process which brought out how often different members participated in the overall festival. Comparison highlighted exactly what they did and how their activities were the same as or different from those of other members of the group. Indeed, without comparison and contrast, ranking within the group would not have been possible. Constructing the overall community of ‘all the Athenians’ also required comparison and contrast between the group and non-group visitors, who came to Athens to compete in the open events in the games and to spectate. Since the boundaries between the group and visitors were clearly fixed and could only be crossed through a decision of the Athenian boule and demos, as we noted above, the two groups were clearly distinguished. These distinctions, together with their different roles, made comparison and contrast between them an obvious strategy. Indeed, the identity of the community of ‘all the Athenians’ could only be created through these processes, which also emphasised the very different positions of the non-member visitors and spectators: except at the open events of the games, they watched members of the community process, sacrifice and compete in the tribal events.99 Their passive spectating is contrasted with the activity of the members. In the open events, this pattern was reversed, so that (most) members of the community watched non-members perform. All of these processes, in turn, emphasised the boundaries between 99

In the cases of colonies, allies and eventually other cities, their activity in the festival was the outcome of earlier decisions and actions at home, when the groups had to decide that they would participate and what they would bring. Once these decisions were taken, further preparations were necessary to ensure that everything was ready to be sent to Athens.

The Community of ‘All the Athenians’

the community and the visitors and made them visible. In this way, the visitors, spectators and athletes coming to Athens from elsewhere were a crucial element not only in making the Great Panathenaia an international event, but also in creating the community of ‘all the Athenians’. In their absence, this group and its identity would not have existed, because the necessary contrast with non-members would not been possible. Taking part in the restricted elements of the Panathenaia, that is, in everything except the open events in the games, created identities for the participants as members of specific groups, such as Athenian men, women and girls, metics and their daughters and colonies of the city, while it also demonstrated their membership in the celebrating community of ‘all the Athenians’ and brought it into existence. In this way, individuals’ actions made visible their relationship to the group and the city of Athens, on which the group was centred. Since the participants were celebrating Athena and her role in defeating the Giants, their activities also created and maintained relations with the goddess. Some of them had stronger connections with her, by virtue of taking on the role of her servant or by imitating her in the pyrrhiche. In contrast, non-members did not have these relationships with her. Since the community of ‘all the Athenians’ was based on residence, how one participated not only defined one’s relationship to Athena, but also to the city itself. Under these circumstances, the decision to invite cities without previous connections to Athens to send delegations was particularly significant and marked a new stage in their relationships with Athens and vice versa. The residential foundation for the celebrating community made it a broad one, which included groups, such as the metics and their daughters and colonies and allies, which would never have been regarded as Athenian citizens. At the same time, it also incorporated Athenian citizens in the hard Aristotelian sense of those ruling and being ruled in turn. Indeed, only these individuals, the Athenian males, had complex identities requiring repeated participation in many different roles of the festival and positions, such as officials of the city, which specifically correlated to their positions as citizens. Their sons, as boys, beardless youths and ephebes, only had identities which focused on them as citizens-to-be or the newest citizens who were prepared to fight for the city. These dynamics shifted dramatically at three points in the festival’s history: first when the team tribal contests were eliminated in the early third century and then when cities without previous connections were invited to send delegations to the procession in about 229. Once the procession ceased to be so exclusive, the most important venue for creating citizen identities was the individual

309

310

Creating Identities: Others

tribal events in the games, which clearly focused on the men’s role as citizens prepared to fight for the city. This aspect of the competitions was probably one of the factors in their increased popularity in the 170s bc. Of course, when all tribal events finally ceased to be included in the games, probably by the late first century bc, Athenian citizens lost a significant opportunity for defining exactly what that status meant. Thus, for Athenian men and their sons, how they participated not only identified them as members of the celebrating community of ‘all the Athenians’, but it also marked them as citizens of Athens, those who ruled and were ruled in turn. This double identity set them apart from other members of the overall community and reinforced their position at its very centre.

The Great Panathenaia and the Politics of Identities As we have seen over the course of the last two chapters, the Great Panathenaia provided an important occasion for constructing identities for its many different participants. When individuals took part in the occasion, they performed particular ideal roles, and so created identities for themselves; they also served as exemplary individuals for other members of the community, who were spectating, so that they, too, could engage with these identity activities. Participants in the festivities also became members of the worshipping community of ‘all the Athenians’, which was celebrating the occasion. As our discussion has made clear, constructing identities was an integral part of the Great Panathenaia and of the roles which the festival played in the city’s social and political life in all periods between the reorganisation in 566 bc and the demise of the celebration at the end of the fourth century ad. While these processes distinguished between different groups, especially between Athenian men, Athenian women and girls, Athenian boys, beardless youths and ephebes, metics and their daughters and various groups which were not resident in the city, particularly colonies and allies, as well as foreign benefactors, they all relied on participation in order to work. Taking part in the festivities made an individual a member not only of one of these particular groups, but also of the larger corporate body of ‘all the Athenians’, which was celebrating the Great Panathenaia. This community was focused on those individuals resident in Athens, as its name suggests, but it also included other groups, particularly colonies, the inhabitants of which could have been understood to have once lived in the city. This corporate group of celebrants, consequently, extends well beyond the limits

The Politics of Identities

of Athenian citizens, as defined in the Aristotelian terms of ruling and being ruled in turn. When individuals took part in the proceedings, they visibly demonstrated their membership in this group and their relationships to the goddess, who was being honoured, and to the city, which was doing the celebrating. When Athenian women and girls, metics and their daughters and colonies, allies and, eventually, other cities took part in the proceedings, they created identities which focused on their service to the goddess and their roles as her servants. In contrast, the identities for Athenian boys, beardless youths and ephebes concentrated on their relationship to the city and not to the goddess; the identities for foreign benefactors also focused only on the city. Since the identities of the Athenian children and young people were clearly divided according to gender and age, they also looked ahead to their future activities as adults, as did the identities of some, but not all, of the metic girls. Their identities, consequently, were set apart from those of the adults involved in the festival. In contrast to all these groups, Athenian men were identified both as servants of the goddess and also as serving the city, so that they had much more complex identities than any other participants. That some groups’ identities focused only or in part on their relationship to the city brings out the ways that the Great Panathenaia was also an occasion for defining what it meant to be an Athenian citizen, that is, an Athenian in the political sense of ruling and being ruled in turn. This individual was an adult male active on behalf of the city and particularly prepared to fight for her; his young sons were also identified as citizens-to-be, and they were preparing for the day when they, too, would fight for the city as citizens. Thus, Athenian men and their sons had a double identity, both as members of the community of ‘all the Athenians’ and as citizens, in the Aristotelian sense of ruling and being ruled in turn, of the city. This double overall identity, together with the multiple participation necessary to create the complex Athenian male identity, set them apart from all other members of ‘all the Athenians’ and placed them in the very centre of this (ranked) community. For them, consequently, taking part in the Great Panathenaia also allowed them to demonstrate their position as Athenian citizens, a role particularly brought out by the tribal contests, both team and individual, in the games. When the tribal contests ceased completely, probably in the late first century bc, then Athenian men lost an important opportunity for creating identities as Athenian citizens and marking themselves as different from other members of the overall community of ‘all the Athenians’.

311

312

Creating Identities: Others

The Great Panathenaia, consequently, had a very strong politics of identity, which focused on membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’ and, for Athenian males, on being citizens of the city in the political sense. These dynamics relied on very clear restrictions about how and when different individuals could participate in the festival. Until about 229 bc, these restrictions governed all aspects of the celebration except the open events in the games, which, as their title indicates, were open to all individuals with sufficient talent, time and money. Even after about 229, when cities without previous connections with Athens were invited to send delegations and sacrifices, distinctions apparently continued to be made within the body of ‘all the Athenians’, and claims to kinship with the city remained important. Meanwhile, the individual tribal events in the games became the important venue for demonstrating standing as an Athenian citizen. This situation ceased when all the tribal contests were discontinued. If other cities no longer sent delegations in the Roman period, as seems likely, then the Great Panathenaia will have continued to be an exclusive affair and an occasion for demonstrating one’s membership in ‘all the Athenians’; if one was an Athenian man, one also displayed one’s status as a citizen of the city. This focus on what it meant to be a member of ‘all the Athenians’ and, for Athenian men, an Athenian citizen set the Great Panathenaia apart from the four great festivals of the cycle, the Olympia, the Pythia, the Nemea and the Isthmia. Those festivals did not concentrate on membership in a limited group, and no section of their games was reserved for selected individuals; instead, they welcomed all comers and made room for them to participate. In contrast, at the Great Panathenaia, only some individuals and groups could take part, and they did not all participate in the same way. At the same time, the Athenians clearly wanted many people to come to the festival, hence the rich prizes; indeed, the celebration successfully drew individuals from many parts of the Greek world, as we can see from the distribution of prize amphorae, the large number of known victors from around the eastern Mediterranean in the first half of the second century, the royal victors in this same period and Hadrian’s inclusion of the celebration in his programme of the most important Greek festivals.100 Despite all this popularity, however, the Great Panathenaia 100

Amphorae: Bentz 1998: 227 8; known victors: Shear 2007c: 142 table 4; royals: Shear 2007c: 135 40 with table 1; Hadrian: SEG LVI 1359.61 74, with the Great Panathenaia in line 66; Shear 2012d: 172 fig. 4. Some of the festivals which Hadrian included would probably not meet modern scholars’ definition of the most important Greek celebrations, and they were not part

The Politics of Identities

never became the fifth festival in the cycle of great games, nor was it included when the cycle was expanded in the Roman period.101 In contrast to these celebrations, the Great Panathenaia was not inclusive enough, because it was too focused on local concerns about membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’ and about demonstrating one’s status as an Athenian citizen. Had the Athenians been willing to reduce or eliminate these aspects of the festivities, then perhaps the Great Panathenaia would have become part of the cycle of great games. Despite all the popularity of the celebration, the Athenians were evidently not willing to eliminate the issues of membership in the community and the city. Indeed, from the Athenian perspective, they were absolutely central to the Great Panathenaia and, without them, the community of ‘all the Athenians’ and the various local identities could never have been created.

101

of the expanded periodos. That a fragment of a Panathenaic amphora dating to 550 540 bc was found in the extramural sanctuary of Demeter at Cyrene suggests that the festival quickly drew competitors (and victors) from well beyond Athens and Attica; Cyrene Museum, Cyrene, 81 14: Bentz 1998: 6.045. On prize vases dedicated in sanctuaries, see Bentz 1998: 103 6. On the cycle and its expansion, see Pleket 2010: 182 3 with note 26; Della Bona 2012: 115 32; cf. Remijsen 2011: 99. In view of the uncertainty about exactly which festivals were added in the expansion, it is worth noting that Hadrian included the Capitolia, the Sebasta at Neapolis, the Aktia at Nikepolis and the Heraia at Argos, but not the Eusebeia at Puteoli; above note 100.

313

8

The City, the Goddess and the Festival

For Athenians, both residents in the city and citizens ruling and being ruled in turn, the Panathenaia was one of the most important festivals of the year, an occasion which allowed them, as a corporate group, to (re)create and maintain their reciprocal relations with Athena, the whole point of the overall occasion. It was also a time for more human pleasures: eating a lot of meat, enjoying the spectacles of the games and having a break from the ordinary routines of daily life. In addition, the festivities played a significant role in creating identities for individual residents, for subgroups of residents and for all the residents collectively as the community of ‘all the Athenians’. As far as we can tell from our evidence, these dynamics continued over the attested history of the celebration from the reorganisation of the Great Panathenaia in 566 bc until its demise at the end of the fourth century ad. They are also visible in our preserved evidence for all known periods of the Little Panathenaia. By looking at the two versions of the festival separately, we have been able to elucidate how these dynamics functioned both at the annual and at the penteteric celebrations. Despite this focus, the two versions do have elements in common. They also differ quite significantly in how their identity processes functioned and, therefore, exactly how and what kinds of identities could be created on which occasion. Explicating the relationships between the Little and Great Panathenaia also allows us to compare them to other festivals in Athens and Attica. The celebration for Athena was not typical of the city’s festivities, and it was particularly set apart by its inclusivity.

The Little and the Great Panathenaia: Similarities

314

Although the Great Panathenaia was only held once every four years and the Little Panathenaia was celebrated in the other three years of the penteteric cycle, they were two different versions of the same festival, and thus they shared a number of important aspects. These similarities

The Little and the Great Panathenaia: Similarities

included not only the same main elements which constituted the festivities, but also the critical role which participating in the proceedings, and ideally taking part multiple times, played, particularly in creating communities and identities. Through the festival’s very name, both versions of the Panathenaia were closely linked to the city, and these connections were made visible as the events took place in different venues in the cityscape and its suburbs. All these similarities created unity between celebrations held in different years, and they also served to keep the focus on the goddess, the whole reason for the proceedings. Irrespective of whether the particular festival was celebrated as the Great or the Little Panathenaia, both versions shared important elements. Their core was formed by the procession and sacrifices together with the pannychis, which is ill attested in all our testimonia. In the case of the penteteric festivities, there was also an extensive programme of games, and some competitions for Athenians are also known to have been held at the Little Panathenaia during the period between the late fifth and the late fourth centuries bc. The procession played a particularly important role in the proceedings, not only because it ensured that all the necessary animals, people and equipment arrived on the Akropolis in time for the sacrifices, but also because it was the most inclusive moment in the festivities. Since many different contingents performing a variety of functions made up the procession, it provided an important opportunity for comparing and contrasting these different groups and their roles in the festival, processes which enabled individuals and groups to construct identities.1 These processes also required individuals to take part actively in the celebration and, therefore, participation was an important aspect of both the Little and the Great Panathenaia. As we have seen, the festivities offered many different opportunities for individuals to be involved with the proceedings, but not everyone could be active in the same way or do the same things. This differential participation was a significant aspect of both versions of the festival, and it played a critical role in the ways in which identities were constructed during the celebration. Indeed, without these different ways of taking part, the Panathenaia, irrespective of its specific form, could not have been an occasion for defining what it meant to be resident in Athens and/or an Athenian citizen. At the same time, participating in the festivities allowed individuals to demonstrate their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’, which was celebrating the 1

Kindt’s implicit criticism of the scholarly emphasis on processions misses this important point, which is not limited to the Panathenaia, irrespective of its specific form; Kindt 2012: 67 70.

315

316

The City, the Goddess and the Festival

occasion. Without this active involvement in proceedings, it would not have been possible to create this communal group, which was also important for constructing identities, because membership in it set the participants apart from other individuals who were not included in it. Membership in this community was not stable over the course of either the Little or the Great Panathenaia, and so the composition of the group itself changed during the festivities: individuals and groups which were included at some points, such as metics and their daughters and Athenian boys, were not included at other moments. Consequently, how often individuals and groups took part in the proceedings had important repercussions for their relationships to the overall group celebrating the festivities. Just as these dynamics were not stable over the course of a particular celebration, so they were also not fixed over time and, indeed, the entire Panathenaia itself was not static, but it changed over time. Sometimes these developments involved relatively small modifications, but, in other cases, such as the ship-car at the penteteric celebration or the addition of the peplos at the annual festivities, these alterations had important effects on the overall occasion, and they also changed the ways in which both participants and visitors would have experienced it. In some cases, the changes were the result of external developments, as, for example, the institution of the Kleisthenic system in 508/7, which had very important effects on the Great Panathenaia and probably also on the annual celebration, although they are not visible in our sources. Thus, despite the ways in which ritual, by its nature, and our sources present themselves, change was the norm rather than the exception for the Panathenaia, irrespective of its form. Consequently, both our understanding of the occasion and our explanations of it must include change, and they must not focus on a static and synchronic vision of the festival. As the name of the celebration indicates, the Panathenaia was closely connected with the city in which it was held. These close links are clearly brought out at the Great Panathenaia by the prize amphorae, which specify not that they are prizes from the Panathenaia, but that they are prizes from Athens, from the city.2 In this formulation, the city and the festival become a single entity, while the name of the celebration also overlaps with the ethnic of the inhabitants and, of course, with the goddess herself. Through these associations, the festival inevitably focused on identities at a variety of levels, for individuals, for subgroups of the city and for the community of 2

Above Chapter 1.

The Little and the Great Panathenaia: Similarities

‘all the Athenians’,3 although all these different identity processes were not always involved or involved to the same extent in every celebration of the Panathenaia. The city and the festival were further connected because the different events of the celebration were physically located in various places within the city. The procession started at the gates of the city in the Kerameikos and proceeded through the Agora and up to the Akropolis, where the sacrifices and the pannychis both took place. Certainly, at the Little Panathenaia, the meat from the sacrifices was distributed in other places and not in the sanctuary, as we saw in Chapter 3. Meanwhile, the various different contests in the games were held in a number of diverse locations, including the stadium, the hippodrome and on the Panathenaic way itself. After the musical competitions were reintroduced, they took place in the Odeion of Perikles, as we learn from Plutarch, while the theatre eventually must have been the location for the dramatic contests.4 Celebrating the Panathenaia, consequently, required individuals to travel around the city to the various venues involved. As part of this process, they saw different parts of the city, and the festival was placed in the physical context of the cityscape. In this way, the connections between the celebration and the city were reinforced. The two versions of the festival, consequently, shared a number of important elements in common, particularly the form of their main parts, the significance of (differential) participation and the close associations between the celebration and the city herself. These common aspects also helped to make the celebration an occasion for creating identities for the different participants. That this element of the festival was always significant is brought out both by its name and by the label on the prize amphorae at the Great Panathenaia. Identities, consequently, were always at stake in the celebration. These processes, however, were not immune to changes during the course of the festivities’ history. These additions to and subtractions from the occasion also affected how its identity politics worked, and thus they cannot be ignored, if we wish to understand how the festival, irrespective of form, created identities for its different participants.

3

4

The celebration also was an occasion for creating identities for the city herself, but limitations of space prevent discussion here. Odeion and contests: Plut. Per. 13.11; on the Odeion, see now Shear, Jr 2016: 197 228 with further references.

317

318

The City, the Goddess and the Festival

The Little and the Great Panathenaia: Differences Despite our emphasis so far on the similarities between the Little and the Great Panathenaia, the two versions of the celebration also differed in important ways. Since these differences concerned participation, inclusion and exclusion, they had significant consequences for the politics of identity at the festival. Although the annual and the penteteric celebrations used the same basic strategies for creating identities, as we discussed in Chapter 1, the results were not the same. In the case of the Little Panathenaia, the focus was on the local inhabitants of the city and the different subgroups of Athens. In contrast, the Great Panathenaia was an occasion drawing significant numbers of non-local participants and spectators to Athens, and the presence of these individuals changed the ways in which identitymaking operated: while the identities certainly worked on the level of the local inhabitants, the involvement of individuals and groups from beyond Athens and Attica made the festival into an occasion in which the identities of residents as inhabitants of the city and, in some cases, as Athenian citizens were also at stake. The people who participated in the two versions of the festival were certainly different, and these distinctions had important implications for the Panathenaia. At the annual celebration, the participants were all local residents, Athenian men, their sons and their daughters, as we saw in Chapter 3. In the 330s, metics and their daughters also seem to have been taking part in the festivities, and the history of their participation was probably parallel to their involvement in the penteteric celebration. All these individuals were resident in Athens and Attica; in the terms which we used for the Great Panathenaia, they are all local residents. Visitors from elsewhere, however, are not attested at the annual festival, and so the occasion had a distinctly local focus. In contrast, the Great Panathenaia was distinguished by its international visitors, who came to Athens both to compete in the games and to spectate, and by the delegations which came from colonies, allies and eventually other cities with animals, and often other gifts, to offer to the goddess. All these people were added to the local participants, the Athenian men and women, their daughters and sons and the metics and their daughters. In addition, in the period between the fourth and second centuries bc, when gold crowns for foreign benefactors of the city were proclaimed at the athletic games, these announcements increased the international flavour of the occasion, even if the honorands themselves were not actually present. Certainly, the process situated the

The Little and the Great Panathenaia: Differences

city within larger international networks, and it brought out Athens’ international connections and so her importance in this larger sphere, as did the activities of the spondophoroi in the years after 229 bc. Their work must have increased the numbers of international visitors to the celebration. At the level of the participants, consequently, the two versions of Athena’s festival differed significantly, so that the Little Panathenaia focused on local residents, while the Great Panathenaia was the big international occasion, which included not only local residents, but also individuals from around the Greek world. The former was an event for members of the in-group, while the latter was an occasion when outsiders were welcomed and included, albeit not necessarily on the same terms as locals. Since participation is a critical element in the ways in which identities were created at Athena’s celebration, the distinctions between the annual and the penteteric festivities also had important implications for the identity politics of the two different versions, because out-group members are necessary for creating group identity, as we saw in Chapter 1. For this reason, the identity politics of the Little Panathenaia focused on the creation of subgroup identities, of what it meant to be a part of a particular group, for example Athenian men or Athenian girls, or a member of a particular tribe or deme. Here, the contrast is with other subgroups of the city, for example Athenian boys, or other tribes, or other demes. The emphasis is not on what unites all these residents together and what sets them, as a single group, apart from other similar groups, such as other communities and poleis. These dynamics required the presence of nongroup members, of individuals from beyond Athens and Attica, who were not present at the annual festivities. In their absence, they could not serve as points of comparison for the residents of Athens. In contrast, the identity politics of the Great Panathenaia focused on the creation of group identity, both what it meant to be a member of ‘all the Athenians’, the worshipping community celebrating the occasion, and, for Athenian men, boys, beardless youths and ephebes, what it meant to be an Athenian citizen (or citizen-to-be), one who ruled and was ruled in turn. These dynamics were made possible by the presence of the international visitors and competitors, outsiders from beyond Athens and Attica, who provided the necessary points of comparison for this identity work. Of course, the different subgroups of the Athenians were also very visible at the penteteric celebration, particularly in the procession, so it was also an occasion for creating subgroup identities, but these processes did not dominate festivities, as they did at the Little Panathenaia.

319

320

The City, the Goddess and the Festival

While both versions focused on the subgroups of the city, they did not do so in quite the same ways. At the annual festival, the emphasis was on groups who were resident in the city and on their place within the city. Since only these subgroups participated, naturally they were especially prominent. At the penteteric celebration, in contrast, the subgroups certainly included all those of the little festivities, but they also incorporated other such groups, for example, the colonies and the allies and the foreign benefactors, none of whom were resident in Athens or would normally have been thought, by modern scholars at least, to be Athenian. Particularly in periods when there were many such delegations, such as in 422 bc, when all the allies had to send contingents, or in the years after 229 bc, these groups must have been very prominent indeed, so that the various subgroups of residents were not the primary focus of attention and identity work, as they were at the annual festivities. In addition, some subgroups may have been active only at the penteteric celebration: the tribes, for example, are not attested as sacrificing at the Little Panathenaia. For such groups, the Great Panathenaia was obviously an important moment for creating identities. Indeed, the format of the penteteric celebration, with all the different groups organised in the procession and at the sacrifices, made it a significant moment for creating subgroup identities, but, for members of these groups, their identity work was not limited in this way, because they also demonstrated their belonging in the larger group of ‘all the Athenians’, and they worked out what it meant to be a member of this worshipping community. At the Little Panathenaia, the absence of visitors from outside the community combined with the focus on the different subgroups made the occasion into an inclusive one: residents of the city were included, although they did not all participate in the same way. In contrast, at the Great Panathenaia, the emphasis on creating identity for the overall group required distinctions to be made between group members and non-group members, who came from beyond Athens and Attica as spectators and participants in the open events. These processes only work by excluding non-members from the group. Consequently, until about 229 bc, there were clear restrictions on which individuals and groups could make a sacrifice to the goddess and, even after these rules were changed, limitations on offering dedications still seem to have existed. Both these boundaries and the divisions between members of different subgroups were decided by the Athenian boule and the demos, and they could only be crossed with the approval of these two political bodies. The penteteric festivities, accordingly, focused on exclusion, rather than inclusion, and

The Little and the Great Panathenaia: Differences

the dividing lines between both the members and the non-members of the overall group and the members of the various subgroups were made visible during the course of the celebration. In turn, these visible divisions must have increased the sense that not everyone could participate in the same way and not everyone was a member of the worshipping community. Since most visitors only experienced the penteteric festivities, the emphasis on exclusion at the Great Panathenaia may not have been as striking to them as it may have been to residents, who took part in both the versions of the celebration and could, therefore, see the differences, let alone to modern scholars. The presence or absence of visitors from abroad also affected the degree to which the different versions of the festival focused on the importance of being Athenian. That the occasion was called the Panathenaia, the ‘all Athenian’ (festival), inevitably linked it with Athenian identity. At the annual celebration, however, this aspect could not be the primary focus, because of the absence of non-member visitors from elsewhere and because of the wide representations of residents and different groups of residents. In contrast, at the penteteric festivities, the presence of individuals from elsewhere brought out the differences between them and the residents, and it made the occasion into an important moment for defining what it meant to be Athenian. In this context, being Athenian meant taking part in the Great Panathenaia by performing actions restricted to residents and/or citizens of the city. For citizens, those men who ruled and were ruled in turn, being Athenian particularly meant competing in the tribal competitions, whether team or individual, as well as being part of groups only open to Athenian men, such as the military contingents in the procession, or the ones which displayed a man’s deme or tribe. For them, repeated participation in a variety of roles set them apart from other residents and marked them as members at the very heart of the community through their citizenship and their parallel status as Athenian males. When both these citizens and other residents later celebrated the annual festivities, they brought with them their memories of the Great Panathenaia and its focus on what it meant to be Athenian.5 These remembrances, in turn, affected their experience of the little celebration and reinforced the weaker connections between it and Athenian identity. Nevertheless, these associations were not strong enough to make being Athenian an important focus of the annual festival. 5

Explicating the memory politics at work here lies beyond the scope of this study. For a brief introduction to remembrance from the perspective of the classical world, see Alcock 2002: 1 35, Shear 2011: 6 12 and Shear 2013a: 513 15, all with copious references to further bibliography.

321

322

The City, the Goddess and the Festival

Despite sharing the name Panathenaia, consequently, the two versions of the festival differed from each other in significant ways, which directly affected how identities were created at the celebration. Since the Little Panathenaia was a local event without visitors and competitors from beyond Athens and Attica, it could not focus on what it meant to be Athenian. Instead, it was an inclusive affair concentrated on creating identities for the residents and the subgroups of the city. In contrast, the presence of visitors and contestants from abroad not only made the Great Panathenaia an international event almost as important as the Panhellenic games in the cycle, but they also caused it to be a significant occasion for defining what it meant to be Athenian, both as an Athenian resident and as an Athenian citizen. These processes required exclusion, and so non-group members were left out of many aspects of the penteteric celebration, except as spectators who watched group members take part in a variety of different roles.

The Community of ‘All the Athenians’ The differences between the Little Panathenaia and the Great Panathenaia were not limited to issues connected with participation, inclusion and exclusion and their effects on identity creation. Although the name of the festival indicated that it was being celebrated by ‘all the Athenians’, that community was created differently at the two versions of Athena’s festivities, because it reflected the different dynamics of the two occasions. At the Little Panathenaia, consequently, the community was local and inclusive, but, at the penteteric celebration, it was exclusive and did not include the many outsiders who had come to the city for the occasion. Indeed, these non-group members played a critical role in creating the community, because they allowed boundaries to be drawn between them and members of the group, a process which clearly defined who was and who was not part of the community.6 At the Little Panathenaia, celebrating the festival, and especially making the sacrifices to the goddess, constituted the worshipping community of ‘all the Athenians’ by the very nature of these actions.7 The prayers made this dynamic explicit, so that the goddess would know exactly which community was giving her gifts and thus on which community she should 6

7

Since citizens decided on these boundaries and saw that they were followed, the process was inevitably circular and self reinforcing. Above Chapter 1.

The Community of ‘All the Athenians’

(continue to) look with favour in the future.8 In keeping with the overall inclusive nature of the occasion, the group of ‘all the Athenians’ included all residents of the city who were present. Since the community itself was not stable over the course of the entire celebration, not all group members were included at every moment, but they were all involved at some point in the overall festival and especially at the time of the procession. Participating in the occasion, consequently, served as a way of demonstrating clearly their membership in the community of ‘all the Athenians’, which was celebrating the Little Panathenaia. As we saw in Chapter 3, however, the focus of the festivities was not so much on defining this community as it was on the specific roles which individuals played within this group. Consequently, at the annual celebration, creating the community of ‘all the Athenians’ is not one of the main purposes of the process; if it happened, it was a by-product of the very nature of the event and the roles which any such occasion plays in society. In contrast, at the Great Panathenaia, creating the group of ‘all the Athenians’ was an important part of the occasion, and it reflected the penteteric celebration’s focus on exclusion. Consequently, clear distinctions were made between those individuals who participated in all events except the open contests in the games and spectators and competitors who came from beyond Athens and Attica to take part in the open events at the games and to watch. In this categorisation, colonies of the city held a privileged position by virtue of their kinship with their mother city; in the years after 425 bc, this special treatment was extended to all of the city’s allies. When these distinctions were made visible through participation, they also articulated the boundaries of the community of ‘all the Athenians’ and demonstrated who was and who was not a member of this group. These dynamics required the international context of the penteteric celebration and the presence of many individuals who were not members of the worshipping group. Only under these circumstances could constructing the community of ‘all the Athenians’ become an important aspect of the festivities. In this configuration, taking part in the events took on an added importance, because it demonstrated visibly both that individuals did belong to the group and also exactly how they fitted into the larger community. The more often they participated, the more important their roles were and the more closely they were linked to the centre of the community. These dynamics are particularly exemplified by Athenian adult males, who most often took on multiple roles during the festival 8

Above Chapter 3.

323

324

The City, the Goddess and the Festival

and, consequently, were the most privileged members of the community of ‘all the Athenians’. The two versions of the Panathenaia, accordingly, constructed the community of ‘all the Athenians’ differently, and the process reflected how other issues of inclusion and exclusion played out in the two forms of the celebration. In the context of the local annual celebration, creating the worshipping community was simply one aspect of the occasion, but, in the international setting of the penteteric festivities, defining what it meant to be a member of ‘all the Athenians’ was an important part of the overall event. The process necessitated the international context of the Great Panathenaia, with its many visitors, who could then disseminate the identity of this community beyond Athens and Attica. Their limited participation in the festivities made visible their status as temporary visitors and non-members of ‘all the Athenians’. In contrast, members showed that they were part of the group by repeated participation, which not only defined their roles within the community, but also marked out their importance within it. Thus, the Great Panathenaia was focused on being Athenian in ways that the Little Panathenaia was not, and this emphasis, in turn, affected the festivities in very basic ways, so that they became quite different from the annual celebration.

The Panathenaia in the Athenian Festival Cycle As the Panathenaia emerges from our evidence, the two versions of the festivities differed significantly: the little celebration was an inclusive, local event focused on the residents of the city, while the penteteric festivities were international and exclusive; consequently, creating the community of ‘all the Athenians’ played an important role only in the Great Panathenaia. At the annual festival, in contrast, the emphasis was on constructing identities for the residents within the context of the city and especially as members of various different groups and subgroups. The Panathenaia, whether in its annual or its penteteric form, did not exist in a vacuum, however. Instead, it was one celebration among many in the Athenian festival cycle, and both the little and the great versions shared elements with various other occasions. Comparing the Panathenaia to these other affairs shows that it was not a typical Athenian celebration, and it stood apart because of its inclusion of representatives of large numbers of the different groups resident in the city; no other occasion was so inclusive. The Great Panathenaia was also unique for its international elements, which are far

The Panathenaia in the Athenian Festival Cycle

more extensive than at other festivities. These important differences also bring out the central position of the celebration for Athena in the city’s life. As a festival held only in the city, the Panathenaia, irrespective of form, had little in common with dispersed celebrations, such as the Rural Dionysia, the Proerosia and the Thesmophoria, which were put on either in at least some demes, as was the case for the first two occasions, or in Athens and in demes, as was true of the Thesmophoria.9 These occasions focused on the subgroups involved, and the obvious comparison was with other parallel subgroups which were also holding the same festivities, even if on a different day, as seems to have been the case with the Rural Dionysia.10 All such Athenian celebrations included sacrifices of some kind, some had processions and/or pannychides and others included games.11 For the Little Panathenaia, the best parallels are perhaps provided by the City Dionysia and the Thargelia, at least in the classical period. The City Dionysia also included a big procession through the city to the sanctuary of the god and then a large sacrifice.12 Both of these festivals had competitions for tribal teams. These events, however, were not identical to those held at Athena’s celebration, because they included only cyclic choruses until sometime before the 330s when comedies at the City Dionysia became tribal and, in the case of the Thargelia, each team consisted of members of two tribes, which were paired together for the purposes of the contest, as may also have happened with the comedies.13 In contrast to the Little Panathenaia, the tribal choral teams are attested at the City Dionysia as late as 175/4 bc.14 In the classical period, consequently, all three festivals provided opportunities for Athenians to compare the teams from different tribes and to create tribal identities, albeit in not quite the same ways, because of the differences in the composition of the teams. While the Little Panathenaia and the Thargelia focused on Athenians and subgroups of city, in the second half of the fifth century, the City Dionysia also had an international element, because the allies brought their tribute to the festival and displayed it in the theatre.15 This 9

10 11

12 13

14 15

On different types of festivals in Athens and Attica, see the very helpful comments of Parker 2005: 73 7. Mikalson 1977: 433 4; Parker 2005: 74, 467 8; Mikalson 1975: 97. Processions: Parker 2005: 178 with note 2; pannychides: Parker 2005: 166 with note 42; games: R. Osborne 1993: 38, but note that hippic games are not included. Procession: Parker 2005: 317; sacrifices: e.g. IG II2 1496.80 1, 111 12; Parker 2005: 317. Dionysia: e.g. IG I3 957 62; II3.4 436 72; Shear 2013b: 390 1; comedies: above Chapter 5 note 122; Thargelia: e.g. IG I3 963 6; II3.4 473 96; P. Wilson 2007a: 156 60. IG II2 3058 IG II3.4 538; Shear 2013b: 392 3. Isok. 8.82 3 with Raubitschek 1941: 356 62; cf. Ar. Ach. 502 6; IG I3 34.18 22; Goldhill 1990: 101 4; Goldhill 2000: 45 6.

325

326

The City, the Goddess and the Festival

process drew clear lines between the Athenians and their allies, and it emphasised the subordinate position of the allies. Unlike at the Little Panathenaia and the Thargelia, Athenian status and identities and the city’s relationships to non-Athenians were clearly at stake in Dionysos’ festival. Thus, despite points in common between the three different celebrations, each one had its own politics and its own role in the city’s life. The Little Panathenaia also was distinguished from the other two occasions by its cycle: it was only held three years in every four, while the other two festivities were celebrated every year. In contrast to the Little Panathenaia, the Athenians associated the Great Panathenaia with specific festivals, a decision which suggests that they implicitly compared and contrasted the different occasions. In the decrees concerning Brea in the 440s or 430s bc and Paros in 372 bc, the Great Panathenaia is explicitly linked to the City Dionysia, to which the people of Brea must bring a phallos and the people of Paros a cow and phallos.16 In the middle of the third century, the two festivals continued to be associated, because the gold crowns for Phaidros of Sphettos and the city of Lamia were to be announced at both of them, as was the crown voted for Prytanis of Karystos in 225/4 (Tables 6.1 and 7.2). When the Athenians passed their decree concerning the spondophoroi, however, the three festivals concerned were the Panathenaia, the Eleusinia and the Mysteries, while the City Dionysia was not mentioned.17 In contrast, after the institution of the Ptolemaia in 224/3,18 gold crowns for the city’s most important benefactors were regularly announced at the contest of new tragedies at the City Dionysia and at the athletic games of the Great Panathenaia, the Eleusinia and the Ptolemaia (Tables 6.1, 7.1–2). Different contexts, consequently, suggested different associations, which also changed over time so that, in the late third century, the Dionysia was still an important venue for honouring benefactors, but it was not worthy of being announced abroad and thus being included in the city’s top international festivals. Collectively, the Athenians’ associations signalled that these festivals were their most 16

17 18

Brea: IG I3 46.16 17; Paros: RO 29.4 5. Note that later documents concerning items brought to the Great Panathenaia by cities claiming kinship do not mention the City Dionysia (Table 4.5). In the second half of the fifth century, the two festivals were also linked for the allies because the tribute normally assessed at the Great Panathenaia was brought to the City Dionysia; e.g. IG I3 61.6 9; 71.31 2; cf. [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 3.5; above note 15. IG II3.1 1145.27 9, 35 8 Gonnoi II 109.27 9, 35 8. In connection with making Ptolemy III an eponymous hero of the city; Paus. 1.5.5, 10.10.1 2; Habicht 1982: 105 12; Habicht 1997: 182; Mikalson 1998: 178 9. The new festival of the Ptolemaia first appears in IG II3.1 1150.11, which dates between 224/3 and 222/1. The date of the institution of the tribe seems not to have been affected by moving all the archons in the 220s down by one year; see the commentary of Bardani and Tracy on IG II3.1 1150.

The Panathenaia in the Athenian Festival Cycle

important and most international; they are, consequently, the obvious occasions for us to compare with the Great Panathenaia. Just as at Athena’s celebration, the City Dionysia and the Mysteries both included large processions, but only the one for Dionysos went into the city, as Athena’s did.19 The procession at the Dionysia included citizens carrying jugs of wine and metics carrying trays, as well as at least one kanephoros, who, in the later fifth and fourth centuries, was probably accompanied by metic girls with parasols and stools.20 Presumably the phalloi from the city’s colonies were carried by their delegations, and the cow provided by the Parians in the years after 372 must have joined the city’s many sacrificial beasts. As at the Panathenaia, the tribal feasts require the presence of animals sent by the tribes;21 there are, however, no indications that the demes or gene also sent victims to be immolated, as they did at the Great Panathenaia. At the Mysteries, there was also a large sacrifice at some point after the procession reached Eleusis.22 Despite these similarities, however, the politics of the three occasions differed significantly. Participation in the Mysteries required a voluntary decision by an individual to be initiated; while the person had to be an adult and to be able to speak Greek, as the proclamation of the rites indicated, he or she did not need to come from Athens or Attica.23 Limiting participation to Greek-speakers emphasised the international dimension of the Mysteries: they were aimed at all the Greeks and not just the local inhabitants. Consequently, Greekness was at issue here. At the City Dionysia, in contrast, Athenian males as citizens were the focus of the occasion, as the pre-play rituals clearly brought out, and scholars have emphasised the parallels between citizens’ roles in the festival and in the assembly; indeed, on some occasions, especially after the celebration, the assembly actually met in the theatre.24 These citizens at the Dionysia were particularly shown 19

20

21 22

23

24

On centripetal (into the city) and centrifugal (out of the city) processions, see Graf 1996; procession(s) at the Mysteries: Bremmer 2014: 5 7 with further references; Parker 2005: 346 50; Graf 1996: 61 3. Citizens and metics: above Chapter 4 note 42 and Chapter 7 note 28; metic girls: above Chapter 4 notes 47, 48, 50. Patm. schol. Dem. 20.21 (Sakkélion 147). E.g. IG II2 661.20 5 IG II3.1 915.20 5; 992.1 4, 12 16 IG II3.1 1372.6 9, 17 21; 1008.8 9; 1028.10 11 Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 32.10 11; 1030.7; IG II3.1 1313.9 10, 90 1; SEG XXII 110.55 6; Agora XVI 284.7 9 IG II3.1 1329.7 9; Bremmer 2014: 8 with further references; Parker 2005: 351 with note 102; Clinton 1988: 69 72; Burkert 1983: 292 3. Proclamation: Isok. 4.157; Lib. Decl. 13.19; cf. Ar. Frogs 369 with schol. vet. Ar. Frogs 369; Bremmer 2014: 4 with further references; Parker 2005: 347. That the participants at the Mysteries were Greeks, not Athenians, is explicit in IG I3 78a.24 6 I.Eleusis 28a.24 6. The pre play rituals included the libation of the generals, the display of the tribute (between 454/3 and 413 and perhaps 410 and 404 bc), the presentation of the war orphans (terminated

327

328

The City, the Goddess and the Festival

to be good democrats, who were prepared to fight for the city. Other groups were located in relation to these Athenian men: male metics were marked as different and less important by their clothes and their offerings; the phalloi brought by the colonies do not seem to have been matched by phalloi from citizens; and delegations from the allies brought their tribute into the theatre as male Athenians watched. The competitions, however, were open only to Athenian men and their sons, citizens and citizens-to-be, and all the other less privileged groups could only sit and watch them perform. This focus on difference and exclusion contrasts sharply with the inclusiveness of the Great Panathenaia. Similar roles and the participation of the same individuals did not lead to the same ritual politics, as the roles of the metics and the ancient commentaries on them make particularly clear. The games at the Great Panathenaia also made it possible to compare the occasion with other festivals, including the Eleusinia, which was linked with Athena’s celebration, as we saw above. The celebration at Eleusis existed by the middle of the sixth century, when it already seems to have included athletic events; a chariot victory is mentioned by Pindar in his ode celebrating the Theban Herodotos’ victory at Isthmia, and a victory for the kitharistes Alkimachos, who also won at the Great Panathenaia, is attested about 440 bc.25 By 329/8, the games had become quite elaborate, so that they consisted of athletic, music and hippic competitions, as well as an ancestral contest (τοῦ πατρίου ἀγῶνος), and they were held on a trieteric and penteteric basis.26 Another comparable set of games was that held annually for the war dead; it also included athletic, hippic and musical contests.27 That

25

26

27

before 355 bc), the proclamation against the (Peisistratid) tyrants and the announcement of gold crowns for benefactors (first in 410/9 bc); Goldhill 1990: 100 14; P. Wilson 2009; Shear 2011: 141 54. Assembly in the theatre: e.g. Dem. 21.8 10, 206; Aischin. 2.61, 3.52; IG II2 350.5 6; 780.4 IG II3.1 995.4; 781.5 IG II3.1 1001.5; IG II3.1 306.22; 344.3 4; 1014.3; 1284.5, 31 2; 1298.3; Agora XVI 181.18 19 IG II3.1 881.18 19; Csapo 2007: 107; Woodhead 1997: 121. Ideology: above Chapter 7 note 30. Athletic events: IG I3 988 I.Eleusis 1; IG I3 989 I.Eleusis 6; Herodotos: Pind. Isthm. 1.57; for athletic victories, see Pind. Ol. 9.99; 13.110; Alkimachos: Table 5.2. The construction of the race track is commemorated by IG I3 991 I.Eleusis 3, which dates to perhaps about the middle of the sixth century bc. IG II2 1672.257 62 I.Eleusis 177.386 91. The history of the hippic games at the penteteric festival is not at all clear to me. IG II2 1672.261 describes them as ‘instituted according to decree’, but they already existed in the second quarter of the fifth century, when Herodotos won. If IG II2 3126 I.Eleusis 64 IG II3.4 584 is correctly restored, then the son of Promachos won the synoris race at these games at some point before about 350 bc; for doubts, see Strasser 2001: 283 note 71. Arist. Ath. Pol. 58.1; Pl. Menex. 249b3 6; Lys. 2.80; cf. Dem. 60.13, 36; IG I3 523 5; Parker 2005: 469 70; Shear 2013a: 511 with further references.

The Panathenaia in the Athenian Festival Cycle

one of the fifth-century prizes for these games was found not far from Thessalonike suggests that the occasion was drawing international competitors by the middle of the fifth century.28 When the Athenians reorganised the Amphiaraia so that it became penteteric, the games included musical, athletic and hippic games, as we know from the list of victors at the first games, which were held in 329/8.29 The successful contestants include both Athenians and individuals from a variety of other cities. In contrast to the Great Panathenaia, tribal contests are not attested at these other games in the archaic and classical periods. For the tribal team events, the best parallels are the competitions at the City Dionysia and the Thargelia, which we discussed in connection with the Little Panathenaia. Events for the cyclic chorus are also attested by the 420s for the Prometheia and the Hephaisteia; probably men and boys competed on separate teams, as they certainly did after 403/2.30 The gymnasiarchoi who seem to be mentioned in connection with the Prometheia in 421/0 suggest that all the contemporary torch-races were probably being contested by teams of Athenians, who represented their tribes.31 In the middle of the fourth century, this contest for Prometheus continued to involved gymnasiarchoi chosen by their tribes.32 By this time, the Olympieia included a competition in the anthippasia for the tribal cavalry contingents, and its history may well have been parallel to that of the anthippasia at Athena’s festival, so that it was first introduced when the cavalry was expanded in the middle of the fifth century.33 All of these contests involved teams rather than individuals, for whom there were certainly tribal events already in the fifth century at the Great Panathenaia, while the apobatic race was probably already being held in 566 with restricted participation, as we saw in Chapter 5. No parallel competitions for individuals are known to have existed at other Athenian festivals in the classical period. The situation with team events in the 380s, when the programme at the Great Panathenaia is well attested, is equally striking. At Athena’s celebration, there were six different tribal team contests, of which two, the pyrrhiche and the cyclic chorus, were held for multiple age classes (Table 5.19). As far as we know, other festivals included only one (Thargelia, Olympieia) or at most two such competitions (Hephaisteia, Prometheia, eventually City Dionysia), but the choral events were held for two different age groups. Although the Great Panathenaia 28 30 31

32

IG I3 525. 29 I.Oropos 520. Above Chapter 3 note 89; situation after 403/2: IG II2 1138.9 11. Prometheia: IG I3 82.35; contemporary torch races: above Chapter 3 notes 105, 106. The torch race at the Hephaisteia is also attested in 421/0; IG I3 82.31 3. Isai. 7.36 with Dem. 39.7. 33 Anthippasia and Olympieia: above Chapter 5 note 108.

329

330

The City, the Goddess and the Festival

had more contests for tribal teams than any other celebration, these events were not unique, and they formed part of a recognised type of competition at Athens. As an overall group, they contrast strongly with the tragedies at the City Dionysia and the dramatic contests at the Lenaia, which were not tribally organised and involved small numbers of teams, but potentially greater expense for the choregoi. At Athens, consequently, the dramatic competitions formed the exception to the rule of the tribal team events, and even the comedies at the City Dionysia had become tribally organised by the 330s. The tribal team contests at these other celebrations most likely were affected by two developments in the fourth century. As at the Great Panathenaia, the other torch-races presumably became the province of the ephebes when the ephebeia was invented in the 370s.34 In due course, some of them may have metamorphosed into ‘all’ the torch-races, which appear in honorary inscriptions for ephebes in the Hellenistic period.35 Since the only cyclic choruses which seem to be attested in the Hellenistic period were at the City Dionysia, these competitions at other festivals may also have been terminated soon after the abolition of the choregia and the institution of the agonothesia; their history would, therefore, be parallel to the tribal events at the Great Panathenaia. As we shall discuss further in Appendix 5 below, the anthippasia at the Olympieia seems no longer to have been held after 270 bc; here, too, the history of the event seems to be parallel to its history at Athena’s festivities. Due to the importance of the apobatic race in the stories of the Panathenaia, it seems likely that at least this individual tribal event continued to be contested during the third century, and individual tribal contests are certainly attested for either 210 or 206 bc; as we have seen, they were an important part of the programme between 182 and 146 or 142 (Tables 5.12–13). Parallel competitions at other Athenian festivals only appear in the 160s and the 150s, when they were part of both the Eleusinia and the Theseia. At the Eleusinia, the preserved tribal contests should all be hippic, but other evidence indicates that the open events also continued to be held.36 The situation at the Theseia, which seems to have been reorganised and made penteteric, probably in 165/4, is more interesting.37 There, the vast majority of the events were tribal, although there were open athletic 34 36

37

Ephebeia: above Chapter 3 note 53. 35 Above Chapter 5 note 104. I.Eleusis 227, 228; Strasser 2001: 273 86. For a summary of the games at the Eleusinia (in all periods), see Clinton 2008: 272 3. Reorganisation: Bugh 1990: 25 with further references. The first preserved list belongs in 161/0; IG II2 956.43 91.

The Panathenaia in the Athenian Festival Cycle

events for both boys and men, and the competitions for trumpeters and heralds were also open.38 In addition to the open athletic events, there were also tribal athletic contests for boys, who were divided into three age classes.39 Tribal hippic competitions were well represented, as were military combat events, and there were separate contests for the cavalry and their officers, as there were at the Great Panathenaia at this time.40 Some foreign victors are attested in the open athletic contests, but, as the victors’ lists are now preserved, there are none in the first three extant lists, for the years 161/0, 157/6 and 153/2.41 Furthermore, when Athenians competed in restricted contests, they always represented their tribes. As presented in these lists, the Theseia was clearly aimed at Athenian citizens and not at competitors from abroad. This trend was so pronounced that, by probably sometime after 120 bc, Athenian victors in the open events were listed with their tribes and not their ethnic, ‘Athenaios’.42 Consequently, in the second century, at the Eleusinia and at the Theseia, as well as at the Great Panathenaia, limiting participation to Athenians required tribal competitions, much the same general pattern which also existed in the classical period with the team events. Despite the similarities between the games at the Panathenaia and at these other festivals, they did not all have the same politics. The City Dionysia, as we have seen already, focused on citizen males, rather than all the inhabitants of the city. Occasions which only had tribal competitions, such as the Thargelia, the Prometheia, the Hephaisteia and the Olympieia, concentrated on the subdivisions of the city, and they must 38

39

40

41

42

Boys’ open athletic events: IG II2 956 col. 1.72 4, 82 3, col. 2.48 9, 57 8, 66 7, 75 6; 957 col. 1.57 8, 81 2, col. 2.26 7, 35, 43 4; 958 col. 1.71 2, 81 2, 91 2, col. 2.42 3, 52 3, 62 3; 960 col. 2.13 14, 23 4; 961 col. 1.38 9, 48 9, col. 2.11; 962 col. 1.4 5; 964.9 10, 19 20, 29 30. Men’s open athletic events: IG II2 956 col. 1.74 5, 83 4, col. 2.49 50, 59 60, 67 8, 76 8; 957 col. 1.59, 83, col. 2.28, 36, 45 6; 958 col. 1.73 4, 83 4, 93 4, col. 2.44 5, 54 5, 64 6; 960 col. 2.15 16, 25 8; 961 col. 1.40 1, 50 1; 962 col. 1.6 7; 964.11 12, 21 2, 31 2. Trumpeters and heralds: IG II2 956 col. 1.44 7; 958 col. 1.40 3; 960 col. 1.7 10; 961 col. 1.5 8. For a helpful summary of the events, see Bugh 1990: 22 4. IG II2 956 col. 1.70 1, 76 81, 85 6, col. 2.44 7, 51 6, 61 5, 69 74; 957 col. 1.55 6, 60 7, 77 80, 84 9, col. 2.29 34, 37 42; 958 col. 1.69 70, 75 80, 85 90, 95 6, col. 2.40 1, 46 51, 56 61; 960 col. 1.35, col. 2.7 12, 17 22; 961 col. 1.36 7, 42 7, 52 5, col. 2.5 10; 962 col. 1.1 3, 8; 964.3 8, 12 18, 23 8, 33 5; 965.1 3. Tribal hippic events: IG II2 956 col. 2.88 91; 957 col. 2.64, 80 90; 958 col. 2.79 84, 91 6. Military combat: IG II2 957 col. 2.47 63; 958 col. 2.67 88; 960 col. 2.29 35; 962 col. 2.1 9. Cavalry and officers: IG II2 956 col. 2.78 88; 957 col. 2.65 79; 958 col. 2.85 90. Foreign victors: e.g. IG II2 959 col. 2.14, 16; 961 col. 1.51; 964.30; first lists: IG II2 956.43 91 (161/0 bc); 957.25 90 (157/6 bc); 958.39 96 (153/2 bc). The lists represented by IG II2 960, 961, 962 probably belong in the 140s and certainly before 135/4, the terminal date for the Cutter of Agora I 6006, who inscribed them; Tracy 1990: 146, 148. IG II2 964.9 12, 19 22, 31 2. On the date, see Bugh 1990: 24 5.

331

332

The City, the Goddess and the Festival

never have drawn large numbers of foreign visitors. With this focus, they provided very good opportunities for comparing and contrasting the prowess of the different tribes, and the identities created here must have been tribal identities. With its tribal competitions, the City Dionysia also offered an occasion for creating these subgroup identities, but they were not the primary focus of the celebration. In contrast, festivals which only involved open events, such as the games for the war dead, the Amphiaraia and the Eleusinia in the archaic and classical periods, did not provide space for creating subgroup identities; instead, they were places for comparing and contrasting Athenians with individuals from other cities. At the games for the war dead, the absence of tribal events meant that divisions among the Athenians were not created, and resentments would not boil up if particular tribes had suffered more than others in that season’s military campaigns. These dynamics mirror the strategies of the funeral orations themselves, which focus on the Athenians as a collective and do not single out specific individuals. Visitors competing in the open events would have been presented with an image of Athenian military power, success and unity. Since the Eleusinia celebrated Demeter’s gift of grain to the world,43 the presence and participation of visitors from beyond Athens and Attica was extremely appropriate. If, as we may imagine, the occasion also emphasised Triptolemos’ and the city’s role in spreading Demeter’s gift beyond Eleusis, then Athens, if not her inhabitants, would have been presented as better and more important than the visitors and their cities. This festival, consequently, did provide an occasion for creating Athenian identities, but they were quite different from those constructed at the Great Panathenaia.44 With the addition of the tribal competitions, the Eleusinia also provided another opportunity for creating subgroup identities and for distinguishing between the Athenians and their visitors. In contrast, at the second-century Theseia, the focus was clearly on tribal identities and the prowess of the tribes’ members and their sons, despite the space allowed for visitors to come and to compete. Appropriately for Theseus, there were extensive events for individuals too young to participate in the men’s class, and there were many opportunities for demonstrating military prowess. Athenian identities, however, do not seem to have been at stake. As 43

44

Arist. Pepl. fr. 637 (Rose), quoted by the schol. Aristeid. Or. 1.362 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 323 Jebb 189, 4; Aristeid. Or. 1.36 8 (Lenz and Behr), 22.4 (Keil); schol. Pind. Ol. 9.99; schol. Aristeid. Or. 1.37 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 55 6 Jebb 105, 18; 1.38 (Lenz and Behr) Dindorf III: 56 Jebb 105, 20. Originally, as the name of the festival suggests, the focus must have been on Eleusis, not Athens, and on the settlement’s identities. This early phase is not obviously visible in our evidence.

Consequences

a group, these games all employ familiar strategies of inclusion and exclusion and of comparison and contrast, but the competitions of these other festivals had quite different politics than the Great Panathenaia, and many of them were concerned with tribes, rather than the city as a whole. As this discussion has brought out, the Panathenaia shares similarities with a number of other festivals in the city and in Attica. The emphasis on tribes and tribal identities particularly find parallels in a number of other celebrations. Nevertheless, the Panathenaia also stands apart from these other occasions in a number of important ways. The tribes are one of the city’s subgroups which were involved; there were also opportunities for the demes and the gene in both versions of the festival. The inclusion of different types of subgroups does not find an obvious example on other occasions. While the focus on male citizens has a good parallel at the City Dionysia, there was no equivalent concentration on the assembly at Athena’s celebration, which, instead, emphasised the origins of the rule of the demos and what being democratic entailed. Citizens, however, constituted only one of the many groups involved in the Panathenaia and creating identities there. This breadth of participation and inclusion set Athena’s festivities apart from other celebrations; for us, it serves to emphasise the inclusivity present in the occasion’s very name. This element is also visible in the games, which, apparently as early as 566, already included both contests limited to Athenians and others open to all and consisted of all three possible subdivisions, musical, athletic and hippic. This extremely full programme is without parallel, particularly in the archaic period, and, for us, it again points towards the inclusiveness inherent in the festival’s name. As comparisons with other occasions indicate, this focus on inclusion and extensive participation at Athena’s celebration was deliberate and the product of multiple generations of citizens who agreed that it should be held in this way. The Panathenaia is also distinctive for its double nature, both annual and penteteric, which finds no other obvious parallel and attests to its significance in Athenian life. All these differences bring out the overall prominence of the festival, and they emphasise its status as the most important and most international celebration in Athens.

Consequences The Panathenaia, in both its annual and its penteteric forms, accordingly, was one such occasion among many at Athens, but it was not simply

333

334

The City, the Goddess and the Festival

another opportunity for honouring a divinity in the usual way, as it were. Instead, it was clearly set apart by its size, inclusiveness and international character, on all of which the Athenians must have deliberately agreed not once, but many times over the centuries, because these aspects do not change appreciably over its long history from its reorganisation in 566 bc until its demise late in the fourth century ad. As the name Panathenaia signals, the celebration was focused on creating a particular worshipping community, which was only brought fully into existence by the festivities for Athena. As we have seen, these politics are specific to this occasion; they cannot automatically be transferred to other celebrations, whether in Athens or elsewhere in the Greek world. Consequently, the Panathenaia and the identities created at it cannot be used as a paradigm for understanding the politics of a major festival organised by the city. To do so removes this event from its context and exports its concerns. Instead, we need to understand each celebration on its own terms and then situate it within the larger context of its community. Our models for understanding such occasions must allow for this local specificity. They also need to focus much more on the complexities of the intersection between the religion of the polis and the identities which its religious practices created. While the same basic processes and strategies reappear across a range of Athenian festivals, they were put to different uses and created different identities. Not all such occasions focused on Athenian identity, and similar situations must have existed in many, if not all, poleis. In order to understand the dynamics of these different occasions, we need to focus our attention on exactly how religion and identity creation are imbricated with each other. We also need to adjust our models so that they can accommodate the complexities and multiplicity involved. Since the Panathenaia was closely connected with Athenian identity creation, it was particularly sensitive to changes caused by politics, in the hard sense, and it responded quickly to them. For us, these issues first come into focus in the last decade of the sixth century bc, when the addition of the cult of the Tyrannicides altered the celebration forever and made it particularly closely linked to the democracy. This decision was obviously a political one, which allowed the demos to demonstrate its control of this important event, as did the changes made to the programme of the games at this time. Other decisions, such as the institution of the new tribes and demes, were not connected to the Panathenaia, but they affected it significantly and, apparently, without delay. From the perspective of the festival, they were one part of the larger changes which took place at this time. While these alterations at the end of sixth century are the earliest clear case

Consequences

in the Panathenaia when politics directly affected ritual and religion, they are not by any means unique in the festivities’ history. Indeed, we have seen repeatedly how political decisions taken in the boule and the assembly directly affected Athena’s celebration, even if the issue at hand was not obviously connected with this occasion or even with the divine. Politics, religion and ritual are closely imbricated, so much so that they cannot be separated. In turn, these intersections allow us to see some of the ways in which political decisions play out in various public spheres. They also remind us that we are dealing with a single, complicated system, which we must approach holistically and not by concentrating on individual elements. Doing so, in turn, will help us to understand what worshipping and serving Athena, or any other divinity, entailed for the individuals and cities involved.

335

Appendix 1

Year 323/2 322/1

P

Archon

Secretary

Kephisodoros Philokles

Archias Pythodorou of Alopeke X Euthygenes Hephaistodemou of I Kephisia Anagrapheus: Thrasykles Nausikratous of Thria Anagrapheus: Archedikos Naukritou of Lamptrai Anagrapheus: Eukadmos of Anakaia Thersippos Hippo[ 6 ] of Kollytos II

321/0

Archippos (I)

320/19

Neaichmos

319/18 318/17 317/16 316/15 315/14 314/13 313/12 312/11 311/10 310/9 309/8 308/7 307/6 306/5 305/4 304/3 303/2 302/1 301/0

P

P

P

P

P

300/299 299/8 298/7 P 297/6 296/5 295/4

336

The Hellenistic Archons of Athens: 323/2 to 48/7 bc

Apollodoros (I) Archippos (II) Demogenes Demokleides Praxiboulos Nikodoros Theophrastos Polemon Simonides Hieromnemon Demetrios (I) of Phaleron Kairimos Anaxikrates (I) Koroibos Euxenippos Pherekles Leostratos Nikokles Klearchos Hegemachos Euktemon Mnesidemos Antiphates Nikias (I) Nikias Hysteros Nikostratos

Lysias Nothippou of Diomeia Pamphilos Theogeitonos of Rhamnous Autolykos Lykou of Alopeke Epicharinos Democharous of Gargettos Diophantos Dionysodorou of Phegous Nikon Theodorou of Plotheia Mnesarch[os Timostrat]ou of Probalinthos Theophilos Xenophontos of Kephale

Antikrates Kratinou from Koile Dorotheos Ar[istoge]nous of Phaleron

Tribe

II XI XII I III IV V 6 VII 8 9 10 II XI

Hellenistic Archons of Athens

(cont.) Year 294/3 293/2 292/1 291/0 290/89 289/8 288/7 287/6 286/5 285/4 284/3 283/2 282/1 281/0 280/79 279/8 278/7 277/6 276/5 275/4 274/3 273/2 272/1 271/0 270/69 269/8 268/7 267/6 266/5 265/4 264/3 263/2 262/1 261/0 260/59 259/8 258/7

1

Archon P

P

P1

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Secretary

Olympiodoros (I) [Anagrapheus] Olympiodoros (II) Anagrapheus: Epikouros Epitelous of Rhamnous Philippos [Anagrapheus] Aristion or Ambrosios or Charinos Theotimos Kleodoridou of Rhamnous (order unclear) Kimon (I) Xenophon Diokles (I) Xenophon Nikeou of Halai Diotimos (I) Lysistratos Aristomachou of Paiania Isaios [ 15 19 ] Euthios Nausimenes Nausikydou of Cholargos Nikias (II) Theophilos Theodotou of Acharnai Ourias Euxenos Kalliou of Aixone Telokles [ 21 ] Anaxikrates (II) [ 4 ]es Lysistratou of Marathon Demokles [ 25 9 ] Aristonymos [ 16 ]s of Aithalidai Philokrates (I) Hegesippos Aristomachou of Melite Olbios Kydias Timonidou of Euonymon Euboulos (I) Kleig[enes of Halai] Glaukippos Euthoinos Euthykritou of Myrrhinous Lysitheides Semonides Timesiou of Sounion Pytharatos Isegoros Isokratou of Kephale Sosistratos Athenodoros Gorgippou of Acharnai Peithidemos Diogeiton Theodotos Theophilou of Keiriadai Menekles Theodoros Lysitheou of Trikorynthos Nikias (III) Isokrates Isokratou of Alopeke Otryneus Euboulos (II) Diognetos Antipatros Arrheneides [ ]sinos Philostratos [ c. 9 Ph]anoponpou of Potamos Philinos Antiphon

Theotimos Stratokleous of Thorai

Tribe

XI

IV V 6 VII VIII IX 10 XI 12 I II III [IV] V VI VII VIII 9 X XI XII 1 2 3

I, II, or VI II

The Great Panathenaia of 286/5 was cancelled because of the revolution against Demetrios Poliorketes; see Shear 2010; Shear 2020: note 2; contra: M. J. Osborne 2012a: 162 3; M. J. Osborne 2015: 59 65; Osborne 2016: 88 93.

337

338

Appendix 1

(cont.) Year

Archon

Secretary

257/6 256/5

Thymochares Antimachos

Sostratos A[ri]st[ 16 ] Chairigenes Chairigenous of Myrrhinous Aphthonetos Archinou of Kettos

255/4 254/3 253/2 252/1 251/0 250/49 249/8 248/7 247/6 246/5 245/4 244/3 243/2 242/1 241/0 240/39 239/8 238/7 237/6 236/5 235/4 234/3 233/2 232/1

P

P

P

P

P

P

Theophemos (I) Philoneos Kydenor Lysiades (I) Eurykleides Phanomachos Lykeas Polystratos Athenodoros Lysias Alkibiades Kimon (II) Ekphantos Lysanias Mneseides (or previous year) Iason (I) (or next year)

231/0 230/29 229/8 228/7 227/6 226/5 225/4 224/3 223/2 222/1 221/0 220/19 219/18 218/17 217/16 216/15

Kleomachos Phanostratos Pheidostratos Kallimedes Thersilochos Polyeuktos Hieron Diomedon

[ 3 ]ochares Ktesi[ c. 10 ] [Kal]lias Kalliadou of Plotheia Diodotos Diognetou of Phrearrhioi Chairephon Archestratou of Kephale Phainylos Panphilou of Oe Phoryskides Aristomenou of L[eukonoion] Prokles Ap[ 15 ] [ 23 ]demou YM[ ] Polyktemon Euktimenou of Eupyridai Aristomachos Aristo[ c. 13 ]

[

P

P

P

V VI

IV VI VII VIII VI

VI

14 17 ]onos of Eleusis

X

Arketos Archiou of Hamaxanteia Epichares Eudemou of Aphidna

X XI

[ 7 ]os Demetriou of Hippotomadai II Eumelos Empedionos of Euonymon III 4 5 6

P Heliodoros Leochares Theophilos Ergochares Niketes (I) Antiphilos Euxenos [ c. 5 ]os Thrasyphon Menekrates Chairephon Kallimachos [Hoplon]?

Tribe

Charias Kalliou of Athmonon Theokrisios Pasionos from Oion Philippos Kephisodorou of Aphidna Zoilos Diphilou of Alopeke

[ c. 14 ] from Kedoi [ ] from Myrrhinoutta [ c. 8 ]tou of Paiania Philodromos Sotadou of Sounion Ph[ c. 14 ] of Kydantidai Aristoteles Theainetou of Kephale

7 8 IX X XI XII 1 2 III IV V VI VII VIII 9

Hellenistic Archons of Athens

(cont.) Year 215/14 214/13 213/12 212/11 211/10 210/9 209/8 208/7 207/6 206/5 205/4 204/3 203/2 202/1 201/0 200/199 199/8 198/7 197/6 196/5 195/4 194/3 193/2

P

P

P

P

Secretary

Tribe

Hagnias Diokles (I) Euphiletos Herakleitos (I) Archelaos Aischron Sostratos2 [ c. 7 ] Kallistratos (I) Pantiades Isokrates Diodotos (I) Apollodoros (II) Proxenides Ankylos?3 Charikles4

Potamon Do[ c. 15 ] Aristophanes Stratokleous of Keiriadai Ariston Theodorou of Rhamnous [ ]kratou of Semachidai Moschos Moschionos of Ankyle

10 XI XII XIII I 2 3 IV 5 6 VII 8 IX X 11 XII

Archikles Charidemou of Erchia Hagnonides Apatouriou [ ] [

]ophantou of Aigilia

[ 9 10 ]nos of Oe Euboulos Euboulides of Aixone Aischrion Euainetou of Rhamnous

P5

P

192/1 191/0 190/89 189/8 188/7 187/6 186/5 185/4

Archon

P

P

Sositeles Tychandros [ c. 7 ] Archippos (III) Phanarchides

Sosigenes Menekratous of Marathon [ 3 ]on Miltiadou of Alopeke Archonides of Sounion [ c. 4 ]machos Menestratou of Lamptrai Diodotos (II) after Prokles Perikle[ous of Halai] Phanarchides Dionysios (I)?6 Iason Aristok[ ] Achaios Herakleon Nannakou of Eupyridai Euthykritos Kephalos Kephalou of Kydantidai Symmachos Archikles Theodorou of Thorikos Theoxenos (I) Bioteles Leukiou of Perithoidai Zopyros Megaristos Pyrrhou of Aixone Eupolemos Stratonikos Stratonikou of Hamaxanteia

X XI XII I II 3 IV V VI VII VIII IX

184/3

2

3

4 5 6

Petrakos assigned [ c. 4 ]machides (I.Rhamnous 51.5 6) to either 209/8 or 208/7, an attribution not accepted by Bardani and Tracy; Petrakos 1999: 51. M. J. Osborne 2012a: 155; cf. Knoepfler 2015a: 283 with note 111. Bardani and Tracy assign the following archons to c. 200: Ankylos; [ ]ippos (secretary: [ c. 5 ]thenes Demokleou[s]); Euandros; Philon (I). Knoepfler 2015a: 272 83; Bardani and Tracy place Charikles in 184/3. On this festival, see above Chapter 5 note 7. According to Bardani and Tracy, Nikophon may perhaps follow some years after Dionysios (I) in 191/0.

339

340

Appendix 1

(cont.) Year 183/2 182/1 181/0 180/79 179/8 178/7

Archon P

Hermogenes Timesianax

177/6 176/5

Hippias Demetrios (II)? Menedemos (I) Philon (II) after Menedemos (I) Chairippos Hippakos

175/4

Sonikos

174/3 173/2 172/1 171/0 170/69 169/8 168/7 167/6 166/5 165/4 164/3 163/2 162/1 161/0 160/59 159/8 158/7 157/6 156/5 155/4 154/3

7 8

P

P

Alexandros Alexis Sosigenes Antigenes

P

7

P

P

P

P

Eunikos Xenokles Nikosthenes Epainetos Pelops Euergetes Erastos Poseidonios Aristolas Aristaichmos Pyrrhos Anthesterios Kallistratos (II) Mnesitheos 8

Secretary

Tribe

Philo[ 3 ]s Aristomachou of Probalinthos Theodosios Xenophantou of Lamptrai Diokles Nom[iou ] [ ] Demetriou of Angele Philistion Philistionos of Potamos [ ]es Hegetoros of Oinoe Polemarchos P[ 3 ]kratou of Iphistiadai Leukios Biotelou of Perithoidai Pausanias Biotelou of Perithoidai Autokrates Autokratou of Pithos

Sosandros Sosikratous of Alopeke Hieronymos Boethou of Kephisia Sthenedemos Asklepiadou of Teithras [ ] of M[y]r[rhin]o[u]s Dionysikles Dionysiou of Hekale Dionysodoros Philippou of Kephale De[me]trio[s] Xenonos of Epikephisia [Bakchylo]s Philonidou of Eleusis Demetrios Dem[

]

Philiskos Kratetos of Paiania

11 XII I 2 III IV V VI VII VII VIII 9 10 XI 12 I II III 4 V VI VII 8 IX 10 11 12 1 2 III 4

Bardani and Tracy place the archon Timouchos [ ] Sok[ ] in c. 170. Tracy assigns the archon Pleistainos to c. 150; Tracy 1989; contra: Traill 1994. The secretary is Philoxenides Philoxenidou. Tracy states that no traces of his demotic are visible on two squeezes in Princeton, but Traill maintains that the demotic is correctly Rha[mnousios]. The year is intercalary; Meritt 1977: 181. If Tracy is correct and no traces of the secretary’s demotic remain, then Pleistainos might be assigned to 154/3, which is also intercalary. If the demotic is correctly Rha[mnousios] of the tribe Aiantis (X), then Pleistainos might be assigned to 160/59, although, according to the Metonic cycle, this year (year 7 of the fifteenth cycle) ought to have been ordinary and not intercalary.

Hellenistic Archons of Athens

(cont.) Year

Archon

153/2 152/1 151/0 150/49 149/8 148/7 147/6 146/5 145/4 144/3 143/2 142/1 141/0 140/39 139/8 138/7 137/6 136/5 135/4

Phaidrias Andreas? Zaleukos? Speusippos? Lysiades (II)? Archon Epikrates Aristophantos Metrophanes? Theaitetos Aristophon Mikion [Dionysios (II)] Hagnotheos Diokles (III) Timarchos Herakleitos (II) Timarchides Dionysios (III) after Timarchides Nikomachos Xenon Ergokles Epikles Demostratos Lykiskos Dionysios (IV) after Lykiskos Theodorides Diotimos (II) Iason (II) Nikias (IV) and Isigenes Demetrios (III) Nikodemos Phokion Eumachos Hipparchos Lenaios Menoites Sarapion Nausias [ ]ratou (gen.)

134/3 133/2 132/1 131/0 130/29 129/8 128/7 127/6 126/5 125/4 124/3 123/2 122/1 121/0 120/19 119/18 118/17 117/16 116/15 115/14 114/13

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Secretary

Tribe

[

5 6 7 V

Xe[

]nos of Phlya

] of Sypalettos

Epigenes Moschionos of Lamptrai

[ ] of Boutadai Menekrates Charixenou of Thorikos [ c. 13 ]kleous of Thria Dionysios Demetriou of Anakaia Theolytos Theodotou of Amphitrope

VIII I 2 3 4 V VI VII 8 IX 10 XI

Heg[ 10 ]no[u] of Berenikidai [ ]nos of Kephale

12 I 2 III 4 V VI

Sosikrates Euphroniou of Thria Su[ ]? Athen[odoros] Anaxikratous of Eleusis [ An]dronos of Phaleron

VII 8 IX X

[Asopokl]es Asopok[leous of Agryle] [Gorg]ilos Gorgilou of A[ngele]

Epigenes Epigenou of Oinoe Euandros [ ] [ d]otou of Diomeia [Mo]schion Moschionos of Paiania Sophokles Demetriou of Iphistiadai [ ]ades Attalou of Berenikidai Isidoros Apolloniou of Skambonidai

11 XII 1 II III VI V IV 7 8

341

342

Appendix 1

(cont.) Year

Archon

113/12 112/11

Paramonos Dionysios (IV) after Paramonos Sosikrates Polykleitos Iason (III) Demochares (I) Aristarchos Agathokles Andronides (I)? Herakleides Theokles Echekrates Medeios (I) Theodosios Prokles Argeios Herakleitos (III) after Argeios [ ]kratou (gen.) Theodotos Kallias Kriton Menedemos (II) Medeios (II) Medeios (III) Medeios (IV) Anarchia Philanthes Hierophantes Pythokritos Niketes (II) Pammenes Demetrios (IV) Ar[ ] Apollodoros (III) [ 7 8 ]os Aischraios Seleukos Herakleodoros Aischines

111/10 110/9 109/8 108/7 107/6 106/5 105/4 104/3 103/2 102/1 101/0 100/99 99/8 98/7 6/6 96/5 95/4 94/3 93/2 92/1 91/0 90/89 89/8 88/7 87/6 86/5 85/4 84/3 83/2 82/1 81/0 80/79 79/8 78/7 77/6 76/5 75/4

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Secretary

Tribe

Lamios Timouchou of Rhamnous

9 X

[

]ros of Krioa

Epiphanes Epiphanou of Lamptrai [ ] Dionysodorou of Ankyle Telestes Medeiou of Paiania Eukles Xenandrou of Aithalidai Thrasyboulos Theodotou of Hermos [ ]thenes Kleiniou of Kothokidai Philion Philionos of Eleusis

[ [

c. 11 c. 17

XI 12 I II III IV 5 VI VII 8 IX 10 11 12 1

from M]y[rrhinout]ta II ]ou of Paiania III 4 5 6

Hellenistic Archons of Athens

(cont.) Year 74/3 73/2 72/1 71/0 70/69 69/8 68/7 67/6 66/5 65/4 64/3 63/2 62/1 61/0 60/59 59/8 58/7 57/6 56/5 55/4 54/3 53/2 52/1 51/0 50/49 49/8 48/7

Archon P

Secretary

Tribe

Taranteinos Neikou of Aigilia

V

Gaios Gaiou of Halai

II or VIII

[

XII

9

P

P

P

P

P

P

Oinophilos [ ]ios Aristaios Theophemos (II) Herodes Leukios Kalliphon Diokles (IV) Kointos Aristoxenos Zenon Diodoros Lysandros Lysiades (III) Demetrios (V) Demochares (II) Philokrates (II)

]stokleous of Apollonieis

Note: P marks years in which the Great Panathenaia was (or ought to have been) celebrated. Sources: Meritt 1977; Habicht 1988; Byrne 1995: 58 note 11; Follet 1998; Byrne 2006/7; M. J. Osborne 2008; M. J. Osborne 2009; M. J. Osborne 2010; Bardani and Tracy 2012: 290 2; M. J. Osborne 2012a: 111 58; Knoepfler 2015a.

9

To the ten years from 74/3 to 65/4 Meritt assigns the following archons: D[ Theoxenos (II); Philemon; Andronides (II).

]; Zenion;

343

Appendix 1

Year 323/2 322/1

P

Archon

Secretary

Kephisodoros Philokles

Archias Pythodorou of Alopeke X Euthygenes Hephaistodemou of I Kephisia Anagrapheus: Thrasykles Nausikratous of Thria Anagrapheus: Archedikos Naukritou of Lamptrai Anagrapheus: Eukadmos of Anakaia Thersippos Hippo[ 6 ] of Kollytos II

321/0

Archippos (I)

320/19

Neaichmos

319/18 318/17 317/16 316/15 315/14 314/13 313/12 312/11 311/10 310/9 309/8 308/7 307/6 306/5 305/4 304/3 303/2 302/1 301/0

P

P

P

P

P

300/299 299/8 298/7 P 297/6 296/5 295/4

336

The Hellenistic Archons of Athens: 323/2 to 48/7 bc

Apollodoros (I) Archippos (II) Demogenes Demokleides Praxiboulos Nikodoros Theophrastos Polemon Simonides Hieromnemon Demetrios (I) of Phaleron Kairimos Anaxikrates (I) Koroibos Euxenippos Pherekles Leostratos Nikokles Klearchos Hegemachos Euktemon Mnesidemos Antiphates Nikias (I) Nikias Hysteros Nikostratos

Lysias Nothippou of Diomeia Pamphilos Theogeitonos of Rhamnous Autolykos Lykou of Alopeke Epicharinos Democharous of Gargettos Diophantos Dionysodorou of Phegous Nikon Theodorou of Plotheia Mnesarch[os Timostrat]ou of Probalinthos Theophilos Xenophontos of Kephale

Antikrates Kratinou from Koile Dorotheos Ar[istoge]nous of Phaleron

Tribe

II XI XII I III IV V 6 VII 8 9 10 II XI

Hellenistic Archons of Athens

(cont.) Year 294/3 293/2 292/1 291/0 290/89 289/8 288/7 287/6 286/5 285/4 284/3 283/2 282/1 281/0 280/79 279/8 278/7 277/6 276/5 275/4 274/3 273/2 272/1 271/0 270/69 269/8 268/7 267/6 266/5 265/4 264/3 263/2 262/1 261/0 260/59 259/8 258/7

1

Archon P

P

P1

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Secretary

Olympiodoros (I) [Anagrapheus] Olympiodoros (II) Anagrapheus: Epikouros Epitelous of Rhamnous Philippos [Anagrapheus] Aristion or Ambrosios or Charinos Theotimos Kleodoridou of Rhamnous (order unclear) Kimon (I) Xenophon Diokles (I) Xenophon Nikeou of Halai Diotimos (I) Lysistratos Aristomachou of Paiania Isaios [ 15 19 ] Euthios Nausimenes Nausikydou of Cholargos Nikias (II) Theophilos Theodotou of Acharnai Ourias Euxenos Kalliou of Aixone Telokles [ 21 ] Anaxikrates (II) [ 4 ]es Lysistratou of Marathon Demokles [ 25 9 ] Aristonymos [ 16 ]s of Aithalidai Philokrates (I) Hegesippos Aristomachou of Melite Olbios Kydias Timonidou of Euonymon Euboulos (I) Kleig[enes of Halai] Glaukippos Euthoinos Euthykritou of Myrrhinous Lysitheides Semonides Timesiou of Sounion Pytharatos Isegoros Isokratou of Kephale Sosistratos Athenodoros Gorgippou of Acharnai Peithidemos Diogeiton Theodotos Theophilou of Keiriadai Menekles Theodoros Lysitheou of Trikorynthos Nikias (III) Isokrates Isokratou of Alopeke Otryneus Euboulos (II) Diognetos Antipatros Arrheneides [ ]sinos Philostratos [ c. 9 Ph]anoponpou of Potamos Philinos Antiphon

Theotimos Stratokleous of Thorai

Tribe

XI

IV V 6 VII VIII IX 10 XI 12 I II III [IV] V VI VII VIII 9 X XI XII 1 2 3

I, II, or VI II

The Great Panathenaia of 286/5 was cancelled because of the revolution against Demetrios Poliorketes; see Shear 2010; Shear 2020: note 2; contra: M. J. Osborne 2012a: 162 3; M. J. Osborne 2015: 59 65; Osborne 2016: 88 93.

337

338

Appendix 1

(cont.) Year

Archon

Secretary

257/6 256/5

Thymochares Antimachos

Sostratos A[ri]st[ 16 ] Chairigenes Chairigenous of Myrrhinous Aphthonetos Archinou of Kettos

255/4 254/3 253/2 252/1 251/0 250/49 249/8 248/7 247/6 246/5 245/4 244/3 243/2 242/1 241/0 240/39 239/8 238/7 237/6 236/5 235/4 234/3 233/2 232/1

P

P

P

P

P

P

Theophemos (I) Philoneos Kydenor Lysiades (I) Eurykleides Phanomachos Lykeas Polystratos Athenodoros Lysias Alkibiades Kimon (II) Ekphantos Lysanias Mneseides (or previous year) Iason (I) (or next year)

231/0 230/29 229/8 228/7 227/6 226/5 225/4 224/3 223/2 222/1 221/0 220/19 219/18 218/17 217/16 216/15

Kleomachos Phanostratos Pheidostratos Kallimedes Thersilochos Polyeuktos Hieron Diomedon

[ 3 ]ochares Ktesi[ c. 10 ] [Kal]lias Kalliadou of Plotheia Diodotos Diognetou of Phrearrhioi Chairephon Archestratou of Kephale Phainylos Panphilou of Oe Phoryskides Aristomenou of L[eukonoion] Prokles Ap[ 15 ] [ 23 ]demou YM[ ] Polyktemon Euktimenou of Eupyridai Aristomachos Aristo[ c. 13 ]

[

P

P

P

V VI

IV VI VII VIII VI

VI

14 17 ]onos of Eleusis

X

Arketos Archiou of Hamaxanteia Epichares Eudemou of Aphidna

X XI

[ 7 ]os Demetriou of Hippotomadai II Eumelos Empedionos of Euonymon III 4 5 6

P Heliodoros Leochares Theophilos Ergochares Niketes (I) Antiphilos Euxenos [ c. 5 ]os Thrasyphon Menekrates Chairephon Kallimachos [Hoplon]?

Tribe

Charias Kalliou of Athmonon Theokrisios Pasionos from Oion Philippos Kephisodorou of Aphidna Zoilos Diphilou of Alopeke

[ c. 14 ] from Kedoi [ ] from Myrrhinoutta [ c. 8 ]tou of Paiania Philodromos Sotadou of Sounion Ph[ c. 14 ] of Kydantidai Aristoteles Theainetou of Kephale

7 8 IX X XI XII 1 2 III IV V VI VII VIII 9

Hellenistic Archons of Athens

(cont.) Year 215/14 214/13 213/12 212/11 211/10 210/9 209/8 208/7 207/6 206/5 205/4 204/3 203/2 202/1 201/0 200/199 199/8 198/7 197/6 196/5 195/4 194/3 193/2

P

P

P

P

Secretary

Tribe

Hagnias Diokles (I) Euphiletos Herakleitos (I) Archelaos Aischron Sostratos2 [ c. 7 ] Kallistratos (I) Pantiades Isokrates Diodotos (I) Apollodoros (II) Proxenides Ankylos?3 Charikles4

Potamon Do[ c. 15 ] Aristophanes Stratokleous of Keiriadai Ariston Theodorou of Rhamnous [ ]kratou of Semachidai Moschos Moschionos of Ankyle

10 XI XII XIII I 2 3 IV 5 6 VII 8 IX X 11 XII

Archikles Charidemou of Erchia Hagnonides Apatouriou [ ] [

]ophantou of Aigilia

[ 9 10 ]nos of Oe Euboulos Euboulides of Aixone Aischrion Euainetou of Rhamnous

P5

P

192/1 191/0 190/89 189/8 188/7 187/6 186/5 185/4

Archon

P

P

Sositeles Tychandros [ c. 7 ] Archippos (III) Phanarchides

Sosigenes Menekratous of Marathon [ 3 ]on Miltiadou of Alopeke Archonides of Sounion [ c. 4 ]machos Menestratou of Lamptrai Diodotos (II) after Prokles Perikle[ous of Halai] Phanarchides Dionysios (I)?6 Iason Aristok[ ] Achaios Herakleon Nannakou of Eupyridai Euthykritos Kephalos Kephalou of Kydantidai Symmachos Archikles Theodorou of Thorikos Theoxenos (I) Bioteles Leukiou of Perithoidai Zopyros Megaristos Pyrrhou of Aixone Eupolemos Stratonikos Stratonikou of Hamaxanteia

X XI XII I II 3 IV V VI VII VIII IX

184/3

2

3

4 5 6

Petrakos assigned [ c. 4 ]machides (I.Rhamnous 51.5 6) to either 209/8 or 208/7, an attribution not accepted by Bardani and Tracy; Petrakos 1999: 51. M. J. Osborne 2012a: 155; cf. Knoepfler 2015a: 283 with note 111. Bardani and Tracy assign the following archons to c. 200: Ankylos; [ ]ippos (secretary: [ c. 5 ]thenes Demokleou[s]); Euandros; Philon (I). Knoepfler 2015a: 272 83; Bardani and Tracy place Charikles in 184/3. On this festival, see above Chapter 5 note 7. According to Bardani and Tracy, Nikophon may perhaps follow some years after Dionysios (I) in 191/0.

339

340

Appendix 1

(cont.) Year 183/2 182/1 181/0 180/79 179/8 178/7

Archon P

Hermogenes Timesianax

177/6 176/5

Hippias Demetrios (II)? Menedemos (I) Philon (II) after Menedemos (I) Chairippos Hippakos

175/4

Sonikos

174/3 173/2 172/1 171/0 170/69 169/8 168/7 167/6 166/5 165/4 164/3 163/2 162/1 161/0 160/59 159/8 158/7 157/6 156/5 155/4 154/3

7 8

P

P

Alexandros Alexis Sosigenes Antigenes

P

7

P

P

P

P

Eunikos Xenokles Nikosthenes Epainetos Pelops Euergetes Erastos Poseidonios Aristolas Aristaichmos Pyrrhos Anthesterios Kallistratos (II) Mnesitheos 8

Secretary

Tribe

Philo[ 3 ]s Aristomachou of Probalinthos Theodosios Xenophantou of Lamptrai Diokles Nom[iou ] [ ] Demetriou of Angele Philistion Philistionos of Potamos [ ]es Hegetoros of Oinoe Polemarchos P[ 3 ]kratou of Iphistiadai Leukios Biotelou of Perithoidai Pausanias Biotelou of Perithoidai Autokrates Autokratou of Pithos

Sosandros Sosikratous of Alopeke Hieronymos Boethou of Kephisia Sthenedemos Asklepiadou of Teithras [ ] of M[y]r[rhin]o[u]s Dionysikles Dionysiou of Hekale Dionysodoros Philippou of Kephale De[me]trio[s] Xenonos of Epikephisia [Bakchylo]s Philonidou of Eleusis Demetrios Dem[

]

Philiskos Kratetos of Paiania

11 XII I 2 III IV V VI VII VII VIII 9 10 XI 12 I II III 4 V VI VII 8 IX 10 11 12 1 2 III 4

Bardani and Tracy place the archon Timouchos [ ] Sok[ ] in c. 170. Tracy assigns the archon Pleistainos to c. 150; Tracy 1989; contra: Traill 1994. The secretary is Philoxenides Philoxenidou. Tracy states that no traces of his demotic are visible on two squeezes in Princeton, but Traill maintains that the demotic is correctly Rha[mnousios]. The year is intercalary; Meritt 1977: 181. If Tracy is correct and no traces of the secretary’s demotic remain, then Pleistainos might be assigned to 154/3, which is also intercalary. If the demotic is correctly Rha[mnousios] of the tribe Aiantis (X), then Pleistainos might be assigned to 160/59, although, according to the Metonic cycle, this year (year 7 of the fifteenth cycle) ought to have been ordinary and not intercalary.

Hellenistic Archons of Athens

(cont.) Year

Archon

153/2 152/1 151/0 150/49 149/8 148/7 147/6 146/5 145/4 144/3 143/2 142/1 141/0 140/39 139/8 138/7 137/6 136/5 135/4

Phaidrias Andreas? Zaleukos? Speusippos? Lysiades (II)? Archon Epikrates Aristophantos Metrophanes? Theaitetos Aristophon Mikion [Dionysios (II)] Hagnotheos Diokles (III) Timarchos Herakleitos (II) Timarchides Dionysios (III) after Timarchides Nikomachos Xenon Ergokles Epikles Demostratos Lykiskos Dionysios (IV) after Lykiskos Theodorides Diotimos (II) Iason (II) Nikias (IV) and Isigenes Demetrios (III) Nikodemos Phokion Eumachos Hipparchos Lenaios Menoites Sarapion Nausias [ ]ratou (gen.)

134/3 133/2 132/1 131/0 130/29 129/8 128/7 127/6 126/5 125/4 124/3 123/2 122/1 121/0 120/19 119/18 118/17 117/16 116/15 115/14 114/13

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Secretary

Tribe

[

5 6 7 V

Xe[

]nos of Phlya

] of Sypalettos

Epigenes Moschionos of Lamptrai

[ ] of Boutadai Menekrates Charixenou of Thorikos [ c. 13 ]kleous of Thria Dionysios Demetriou of Anakaia Theolytos Theodotou of Amphitrope

VIII I 2 3 4 V VI VII 8 IX 10 XI

Heg[ 10 ]no[u] of Berenikidai [ ]nos of Kephale

12 I 2 III 4 V VI

Sosikrates Euphroniou of Thria Su[ ]? Athen[odoros] Anaxikratous of Eleusis [ An]dronos of Phaleron

VII 8 IX X

[Asopokl]es Asopok[leous of Agryle] [Gorg]ilos Gorgilou of A[ngele]

Epigenes Epigenou of Oinoe Euandros [ ] [ d]otou of Diomeia [Mo]schion Moschionos of Paiania Sophokles Demetriou of Iphistiadai [ ]ades Attalou of Berenikidai Isidoros Apolloniou of Skambonidai

11 XII 1 II III VI V IV 7 8

341

342

Appendix 1

(cont.) Year

Archon

113/12 112/11

Paramonos Dionysios (IV) after Paramonos Sosikrates Polykleitos Iason (III) Demochares (I) Aristarchos Agathokles Andronides (I)? Herakleides Theokles Echekrates Medeios (I) Theodosios Prokles Argeios Herakleitos (III) after Argeios [ ]kratou (gen.) Theodotos Kallias Kriton Menedemos (II) Medeios (II) Medeios (III) Medeios (IV) Anarchia Philanthes Hierophantes Pythokritos Niketes (II) Pammenes Demetrios (IV) Ar[ ] Apollodoros (III) [ 7 8 ]os Aischraios Seleukos Herakleodoros Aischines

111/10 110/9 109/8 108/7 107/6 106/5 105/4 104/3 103/2 102/1 101/0 100/99 99/8 98/7 6/6 96/5 95/4 94/3 93/2 92/1 91/0 90/89 89/8 88/7 87/6 86/5 85/4 84/3 83/2 82/1 81/0 80/79 79/8 78/7 77/6 76/5 75/4

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Secretary

Tribe

Lamios Timouchou of Rhamnous

9 X

[

]ros of Krioa

Epiphanes Epiphanou of Lamptrai [ ] Dionysodorou of Ankyle Telestes Medeiou of Paiania Eukles Xenandrou of Aithalidai Thrasyboulos Theodotou of Hermos [ ]thenes Kleiniou of Kothokidai Philion Philionos of Eleusis

[ [

c. 11 c. 17

XI 12 I II III IV 5 VI VII 8 IX 10 11 12 1

from M]y[rrhinout]ta II ]ou of Paiania III 4 5 6

Hellenistic Archons of Athens

(cont.) Year 74/3 73/2 72/1 71/0 70/69 69/8 68/7 67/6 66/5 65/4 64/3 63/2 62/1 61/0 60/59 59/8 58/7 57/6 56/5 55/4 54/3 53/2 52/1 51/0 50/49 49/8 48/7

Archon P

Secretary

Tribe

Taranteinos Neikou of Aigilia

V

Gaios Gaiou of Halai

II or VIII

[

XII

9

P

P

P

P

P

P

Oinophilos [ ]ios Aristaios Theophemos (II) Herodes Leukios Kalliphon Diokles (IV) Kointos Aristoxenos Zenon Diodoros Lysandros Lysiades (III) Demetrios (V) Demochares (II) Philokrates (II)

]stokleous of Apollonieis

Note: P marks years in which the Great Panathenaia was (or ought to have been) celebrated. Sources: Meritt 1977; Habicht 1988; Byrne 1995: 58 note 11; Follet 1998; Byrne 2006/7; M. J. Osborne 2008; M. J. Osborne 2009; M. J. Osborne 2010; Bardani and Tracy 2012: 290 2; M. J. Osborne 2012a: 111 58; Knoepfler 2015a.

9

To the ten years from 74/3 to 65/4 Meritt assigns the following archons: D[ Theoxenos (II); Philemon; Andronides (II).

]; Zenion;

343

Appendix 2

The Parthenon Frieze and the Panathenaia

The Parthenon frieze is regularly invoked by scholars studying the Panathenaia who use the monument to explicate the procession at the festival.1 In so doing, they avail themselves of an identification which was first made by James Stuart and Nicholas Revett in 1787, as students of the monument regularly point out.2 Although this identification has been accepted by many scholars, it has also come under fire, largely because of perceived ‘omissions’ which ‘ought’, in the eyes of the authors, to have been included.3 Such approaches do not deny that the frieze shows a procession, but they understand it as a procession which represents aspects of all Athenian festivals.4 On this line of reasoning, the frieze cannot provide evidence for Athena’s festival. We must ask, therefore, what procession is shown on the frieze. Addressing this question requires us to face a number of methodological issues, but doing so also clarifies the subject of the sculpture. As we shall see, two elements in particular identify the frieze as indubitably the procession at the Great Panathenaia, while this clear identification, in turn, allows us to use the representation to provide evidence for the contemporary procession. Any interpretation of the Parthenon must take into account its contexts in the sanctuary of Athena on the Akropolis. These contexts include not only the physical space of the precinct, but also the religious activities which took place in it. Of them, the most important festival was the Panathenaia. As we saw in Chapter 2, the celebration was associated with a specific set of stories focused on the gods’ victory against the Giants, and 1

2

3

4

344

E.g. Parker 2005: 263 5; Simon 1983: 58 68; Parke 1977: 37 45; Tracy 1991: 147 51; cf. Neils 1992a: 25 7. Stuart and Revett 1787: 12 13; regularly noted: e.g. Holloway 1966: 223; Neils 2001: 173; Stevenson 2003: 237 8; Fehr 2011: 7; Connelly 2014: 157 8. The identification was defended firmly by Neils, who helpfully surveys other interpretations; Neils 2001: 173 201; see also Shear, Jr 2016: 401 4. Omissions: e.g. Holloway 1966: 223; Rotroff 1977: 379 80; Boardman 1984: 211, 215; Connelly 1996: 54; Hurwit 1999: 226; cf. Neils 2001: 174. E.g. I. Jenkins 1994: 32 4, 38 42; Wesenberg 1995; Pollitt 1997; Hurwit 1999: 224 8; contra: Neils 2001: 184 5; Stevenson 2003: 233 65; Parker 2005: 263 note 45.

The Parthenon Frieze and the Panathenaia

the hero Erichthonios, who founded the occasion. Erichthonios was distinct from Erechtheus, who was also connected with the sanctuary, but not with this celebration. In this precinct, the Panathenaia was the only occasion involving an extensive procession and large numbers of people and sacrificial beasts;5 at the time of the penteteric festival, the numbers would have been particularly large. The religious context, accordingly, points towards Athena’s most important festival and away from the hero Erechtheus.6 The sanctuary also provided the physical context in which viewers saw both the temple and its sculptural decoration. Since the approach to the Akropolis was from the west, visitors always saw the Parthenon first from the west side; they would then have proceeded along the north or the south sides to the east side, which, at all times, they saw last (Fig. 4.8).7 Although the frieze is shown on the four different sides of the building, these different sections are linked together and, at the corners of the building, the procession continues from one side to the next, as is especially clear from the north-west, north-east and south-east corners (Fig. A2.1);8 what is shown is clearly a single procession. This general subject must have been intelligible when viewers first saw it, that is, when they saw the section of the frieze on the west side. They may subsequently have refined their interpretations as they saw more of the frieze, but a design which asked them to revise their understandings completely upon finally reaching the east side is unlikely. Indeed, any long narrative frieze which requires viewers to look at it twice in its entirety, once to comprehend the crucial scene and then a second time to reinterpret the rest of it in the light of the significant section, is not likely to be successful visually nor easily understood by viewers.9 Such an interpretation also does not fit with ancient viewing habits: spectators identified 5 6

7

8 9

For a helpful list of processions, see Parker 2005: 178 note 2. For these reasons, the sacrifice of Erechtheus’ daughters and his subsequent death are not necessarily the most obvious subject for the building, a point which Connelly fails to notice; Connelly 1996; repeated in popular form in Connelly 2014: 157 209. On the visibility of the frieze, which has often been questioned, see Stillwell 1969; R. Osborne 1987; and now Wescoat and Levitan 2017 with further references. Wescoat and Levitan’s discussion of the experiment performed at the Nashville Parthenon shows that the frieze on the original building would be seen without difficulties. On the unity of the frieze, note also Neils 2001: 185. As is required by Connelly’s interpretation of the frieze as the sacrifice of the daughters of Erechtheus. In order to present her account, she begins with the east side and proceeds ‘backwards’ to the west side, as was never possible for any ancient viewer; Connelly 1996; Connelly 2014: 164 201. That she must present her argument in this fashion ought to demonstrate just how implausible it is. Against this interpretation, see Neils 2001: 178 80; Hurwit 1999: 223 4. Neils helpfully brings out the iconographical problems of Connelly’s interpretation.

345

346

Appendix 2

Figure A2.1 Parthenon frieze, 447 440 bc: the procession at the north west corner (N134 6 and W1) (British Museum, London, block North XLVII/West I). The procession from the west side clearly continues around the corner on to the north side of the building.

The Parthenon Frieze and the Panathenaia

the general subject and then refined their understanding after further observation.10 Viewers, accordingly, were confronted with a long procession which occupied all four sides of the Parthenon (Fig. 4.8). In terms of working out exactly which procession was shown, three sections were particularly important. Not quite halfway along the north side, the participants in the procession change from cavalrymen to apobatai and their charioteers; a similar shift occurs as well on the south side at about the middle of the frieze.11 These two sections form a particularly distinctive part of the procession and, since the apobatic teams were shown on both of the two long sides (Fig. 4.8), any visitor walking to the east side and the front of the building would have been able to see these chariot groups. As we saw in Chapter 2, the apobatic race played a particularly important role in the festival’s stories and, at Athens, it was specific to the Panathenaia.12 That the apobatic teams participated in the procession to Athena, rather than just in the games, is suggested by Strepsiades’ wife’s hopes for her son, that, when he grows up, he will drive a chariot up to the Akropolis.13 The association of chariots and the Akropolis requires the festival of Athena. Consequently, these two stretches of apobatic teams on the frieze played a particularly important role in identifying exactly what procession was being shown.14 Since the frieze was originally painted, the armour of the apobatai would have been much more noticeable than it is today (Fig. A2.2), and the identity of these chariot teams as apobatic teams would have been very clear. For viewers who already thought that the frieze showed the procession at the Panathenaia, the apobatai and chariots confirmed this view, while, for other viewers, they allowed the identification of the occasion. Further confirmation of this identification was provided by the central scene on the east side (Fig. 4.4). The critical element here is the cloth being folded up by the older man (E34), identified as the basileus by his clothes, and the child (E35), whose sex does not concern us here.15 Seen after the 10 11

12 14 15

Stansbury O’Donnell 1999: 55 70, 92. On the north side, the cavalry are shown on blocks N XXIX XLVII and the apobatic teams on blocks N XI XXVIII. On the south side, the cavalry occupy blocks S I XXIV and the apobatic teams blocks S XXV XXXV (left half). On both the north and south sides, there were originally a total of forty seven blocks, not all of which are still preserved today. Above Chapter 2 with note 55. 13 Ar. Clouds 69 70. Compare Parker 2005: 263 with note 45. The basileus is identified by his long, ungirt chiton and royal shoes; Poll. Onom. 7.77, 85; cf. Hsch. s.v. βασιλίδες; Phot. Lex. s.v. βασιλίδες; von Heintze 1993: 409 10; Shear, Jr 2016: 132 with note 159. Neils ignores the shoes and identifies him simply as a ‘priest’; Neils 2001: 168 9. The sex of the child has occasioned much discussion; for summaries with further references, see: Neils 2001: 169 71; E. B. Harrison 1996: 203 5; Berger and Gisler Huwiler 1996: 158 9, 172 4;

347

348

Appendix 2

Figure A2.2 Parthenon frieze, 447 440 bc: apobatic chariots in the procession with an armed apobates and an attendant (N70 2) (British Museum, London and Akropolis Museum, Athens, block North XXVII).

apobatic teams on the north and south sides and located over the central intercolumniation of the pronaos of the largest temple in Athena’s main sanctuary in the city, the cloth can only be the peplos given to Athena at the Great Panathenaia. The robe presented to the goddess was not only decorated with the Gigantomachy, but it was also ‘saffron-coloured and hyacinth-coloured’, that is blue and gold.16 On the frieze, the robe was presumably decorated with blue and gold paint, and thus it would have been instantly identifiable. With this colour scheme, it could have been no other garment at Athens. At three points on the north, south and east

16

Shear, Jr 2016: 132 note 159. Eudokia, de S. Cypriano 2.20 1 makes no mention of the Panathenaia and, consequently, this passage is not relevant to Athena’s festival. Since this life was written in the first half of the fifth century ad about a saint who lived about ad 200 58, it does not obviously provide evidence for activities in Athena’s sanctuary in the middle to third quarter of the fifth century bc. Above Chapter 4 with note 148.

The Parthenon Frieze and the Panathenaia

friezes, consequently, the design clearly identified the procession as that of the Great Panathenaia (Fig. 4.8).17 Since the apobatic teams take up a considerable section of both the north and south friezes, viewers could not have overlooked them, and they would have been in no doubt about the occasion depicted. Any uncertainty would have been dispelled by the gold and blue peplos on the east side of the building. These clear Panathenaic markers, together with the unity of the four sides of the frieze, also make it extremely difficult to understand the frieze as showing an idealised representation of all Athenian festivals, as some scholars have wished to do.18 The Parthenon frieze, accordingly, depicts the procession at the Great Panathenaia, and it would have been clearly identifiable because of the apobatic teams and the peplos scene at the centre of the east side of the building. Since these elements were specific to the penteteric festival in the middle of the fifth century, the procession cannot be an amalgam of various Athenian festivals. That the designers had the contemporary procession in mind is suggested by the depiction of the cavalry on the south side. Here, they are arranged in ten equal ranks, as identified by their clothes and equipment.19 In the middle of the fifth century, this design may simply reflect the organisation of the recently enlarged Athenian cavalry by tribe. At the same time, it also recalls the ten divisions of the cavalry which represented their tribes in the anthippasia, a contest which was probably introduced in connection with the increase in the size of the cavalry, as we saw in Chapter 5. When the demos decided to increase the numbers of cavalrymen, this decision must have had a significant effect on the procession of Athena’s festival, because the increased numbers needed to be accommodated in the procession. Consequently, the appearance of the procession must have changed considerably at this time, hence the design of the frieze.20 The emphasis on the cavalry and particularly their depiction on the south frieze is important, because it indicates that the 17

18

19

20

There was nothing subtle about these sections, and thus we are not reliant on ‘subtle clues’ to identify the occasion; contra: Neils 2001: 193 6; the quotation is from p. 193. Above note 4. A martial equivalent would be an idealised battle scene which showed a god fighting a Giant next to a Lapith in combat with a Centaur and, beyond, a Greek against an Amazon, etc. As this description brings out, such a composition conforms to no known representation in Greek art, and it ignores all requirements of narrative and unity. Of course, such a scene was never concocted. Similarly, we should not create a parallel amalgam of festivals to explain the Parthenon frieze. E. B. Harrison 1984: 230 3; I. Jenkins 1994: 55 63; Berger and Gisler Huwiler 1996: 110 11; Neils 2001: 53 4; Shear, Jr 2016: 122 3. The cavalry on the north frieze may also have been understood as ten uneven ranks, but the divisions are not particularly clear, hence Jenkins’ and Neils’ different schemes; I. Jenkins 1994: 99 101; Neils 2001: 54 6. Contra: Parker 2005: 263 note 43.

349

350

Appendix 2

designers had in mind the contemporary procession to Athena at the penteteric festivities. In this way, the frieze finds good parallels both in depictions of processions in vase painting, especially in the archaic period, and also in votive reliefs, as Jenifer Neils and John Kroll have noted.21 Furthermore, the use of the contemporary procession as a model for the design of the frieze allows us to employ this depiction as evidence for the way in which the Athenians processed up to the Akropolis at the Great Panathenaia in the middle of the fifth century. As such, it provides us with important information for this period which predates our late fifth-century literary sources.

21

Neils 2001: 42 4, 196 8; Kroll 1979. Such depictions in vase painting were not limited to the archaic period, as a red figure volute krater attributed to the Kleophon Painter and showing a procession to Apollo demonstrates; Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Ferrara, 44894 (T 57 C VP) ARV2 1143, 1: Para. 455; Addenda2 334; Lambrinudakis 1984: no. 303; Neils 2001: 213 fig. 149.

Appendix 3

The Races for the Apobates and the Dismounting Charioteer

In the second-century victors’ lists, the tribal contests on the Panathenaic Way regularly begin with two races: one for the apobates (ἀποβάτης) and a second for the dismounting charioteer (ἡνίοχος ἐγβιβάζων) (Table 5.12). The listing for the event is followed by the name of the victor, as is standard in these lists. In the case of these entries, the format suggests that we are dealing with two different races, and this interpretation is reinforced by our preserved information about the victors: in the three cases in which enough information is preserved, the apobates and the charioteer came from different tribes, as we would expect in two different races.1 Despite this evidence, various scholars have regarded these entries as a single event, in which both the winning apobates and his charioteer, the ἡνίοχος ἐγβιβάζων of the victors’ lists, were recorded.2 Re-examining the evidence shows that these entries in the second century were for two different races with different types of vehicles. This material, in turn, maps on to our literary testimonia, which describe the apobatic race in two rather different ways. Consequently, there were not only two distinct ‘dismounting’ races at the Great Panathenaia, but they also seem to have worked slightly differently. As we saw in Chapter 2, when we discussed the stories about the invention of the apobatic contest, the event involved the four-horse chariot, which Greek authors called the harma (ἅρμα) and Latin authors the quadriga. In the visual representations, the vehicle is always pulled by four horses. That the actual race in the games used a four-horse chariot is also indicated by our testimonia. The two early fourth-century victors’ bases and the best preserved Panathenaic prize amphora for the event all

1

2

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.36 9 (tribes: Aigeis and Erechtheis); IG II2 2316.17 20 (tribes: Ptolemais and Hippothontis); SEG XLI 115 col. I.7 9 (tribes: Oineis and Aiantis). Two events: Tracy and Habicht 1991: 198; Tracy 1991: 140 1; cf. Neils and Schultz 2012: 196. S. Müller 1996: 61; Brelich 1969: 324 with note 48; Beschi 1984: 185; Reed 1990: 306 with note 2; cf. Patrucco 1972: 384. Note that both competitions involved jumping on and off a chariot, not a horse; contra: Olivová 1989: 76.

351

352

Appendix 3

Figure A3.1 Agora XVIII C195 = IG II3.4 578: [K]rat[e]s’ base for his victory in the apobatic race, c. 390 bc (Agora Excavations, Athens, S 399).

Figure A3.2 Panathenaic amphora attributed to the Marsyas Painter, 340/39 bc: detail of the apobatic race (J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, 79.AE.147).

Races for the Apobates and the Dismounting Charioteer

show four-horse chariots (Table 5.11) (Figs. A3.1–2), as do the depictions of the apobatai on the Parthenon frieze (cf. Fig. A2.2).3 When the race is described in [Demosthenes] 61, the term used for the chariots is, as we would expect, ἅρμα.4 All our evidence, consequently, indicates that the apobatic race involved four-horse chariots.5 In contrast, in the victors’ list for either 146 or 142, the entry for the dismounting charioteer specifies that the vehicle involved is a zeugos.6 It seems likely that, in the first half of the second century, when this race is attested, it always involved a car pulled by a pair of horses, rather than a four-horse chariot. This distinction in the type of vehicle and the number of horses involved indicates clearly that the apobatic competition was different from the race for the dismounting charioteer. The former required the standard racing team used in the four-horse chariot race, while the latter involved the less expensive standard two-horse team.7 That there were two similar, but separate, races at the Panathenaia in at least the first half of the second century bc may explain why our literary testimonia provide rather different explanations of how the apobatic race was held. As we shall see, they may be divided into two groups, which map on to the two races at Athena’s games. Both the Synagoge and Photios link the apobatic race specifically with Athena, and they describe the event: ‘those skilled at driving a chariot at the same time when the horses were running used to mount into the car by means of the wheel, and they used to dismount again; it was at the same time a hippic and an athletic contest’.8 The description of how the contestants mounted back into the vehicle ‘by means of the wheel’ is very close to fifth- and early fourth-century sculpted depictions, such as the two victory bases (Fig. A3.1) and two figures on the Parthenon frieze (N50, N64) (Fig. 4.3).9 In these depictions, the apobatai are leaning back from the car, with one bent leg and foot planted on the floor of the chariot, while the other leg hangs in the air and the foot is placed next to the inside edge of the wheel. These similarities suggest that either our lexicographical sources or the works on which they drew were influenced not only by earlier literary descriptions, but also by fifth- and 3

4 5

6 8

9

Apobatai and chariots on Parthenon frieze: N46 74; S62 87; I. Jenkins 1994: 64 8, 88 95. That the chariots are pulled by four horses is now clearest on slab S XXXI with the horses and chariot of S78 9; I. Jenkins 1994: 67. [Dem.] 61.28. Thus, there is no evidence to support Neils’ and Schultz’s contention that the race involved two horse chariots; Neils and Schultz 2012: 195. IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.49. 7 Zeugos: above Chapter 5 with note 62. Synagoge s.v. ἀποβατῶν ἀγών (Cunningham, MS B); repeated by Phot. Lex. s.v. ἀποβατῶν ἀγών and Lexeis Rhetorikai s.v. ἀποβατῶ (198, 11 Bekker); Etym. Magn. s.v. ἀποβάτης. Shear 2003a: pl. 5a, c; I. Jenkins 1994: 89, 92.

353

354

Appendix 3

fourth-century bc figural representations. As presented here, we have a race involving both a charioteer, who stayed in the vehicle and drove, and an apobates, who jumped on and off the moving car. In the sculpted versions, the moment represented should be part of the process of mounting back into the chariot.10 The apobatic race is also described at length in a speech preserved among the works of Demosthenes, and the author commends the feats of Epikrates both on foot, when he passed the chariots of his opponents, and as driver, when he avoided a head-on crash with another vehicle.11 Since this second car is described as ‘the chariot of your opponents’ (τοῦ τῶν ἀντιπάλων ἅρματος), the vehicles were pulled by four horses and carried two individuals, the charioteer and the apobates.12 Epikrates’ driver, however, is not mentioned, and he is described as acting as his own charioteer. Certainly, this decision focuses attention on Epikrates, and it magnifies his achievements. It also fits with our evidence for the Panathenaia, which only records the apobates as the victor and, as in the open hippic events, ignores the professional drivers and jockeys.13 Since in the fourth century, when this speech seems to date, this race was only held at the Panathenaia, the episode described here probably took place at Athena’s penteteric festival.14 It certainly fits together with the evidence provided by the Synagoge and Photios, as well as with the contemporary visual depictions. A rather different description of the apobatic race is presented by Dionysios of Halikarnassos in his description of the Roman Ludi Maximi of 490 bc, which he says that he took from the historian Fabius Pictor. Following his source, Dionysios calls the event ‘the race of the parabatai in the chariots’ (ὁ τῶν παρεμβεβηκότων τοῖς ἅρμασι δρόμος); as he describes it, when the hippic contests have ended, ‘leaping down from the chariots, those riding beside the charioteers (οἱ παροχούμενοι τοῖς ἡνιόχοις), whom the poets call parabatai, but the Athenians apobatai, compete in a race with one another for the length of one stadion’.15 In this description, the part on 10 11

12 13

14 15

Contra: Reed 1990: 309 10 and cf. 312 14. [Dem.] 61.28 9. The speech seems to date to the third quarter of the fourth century, perhaps between 340 and 338 bc; for the date and authorship, see Clavaud 1974: 83 9. On the number of opponents, see Crowther 1991: 175. On [K]rat[e]s’ base (Agora XVIII C195 IG II3.4 578), the name is presumably that of the victorious apobates and, as on the second century victors’ lists, the charioteer remains unmentioned. Compare Crowther 1992: 37. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7.73.2 3 quoting Fabius Pictor FGrHist 809 F13b FRH 1 F20. According to Müller, this passage pertains only to the Roman equivalent of the Greek contest and provides no evidence for the apobatic contest in Greece; S. Müller 1996: 57 8 note 64. Dionysios, however, clearly thought that the customs were the same. When Fabius Pictor was writing, the

Races for the Apobates and the Dismounting Charioteer

foot comes at the end of the event, after the chariots have raced each other, and the foot race is among the parabatai/apobatai. The comment about the poets and the Athenians seems to have been added by Dionysios to the account of Fabius Pictor; it suggests that, even if the original contest in Rome bore little resemblance to an Athenian one in either the early fifth century or the late third century bc, when Fabius Pictor was writing, they seemed to Dionysios to be related events. As explained by Dionysios, this competition seems to be rather different from the race described by [Demosthenes], the Synagoge and Photios. Indeed, it recalls Pausanias’ description of the kalpe race at Olympia, in which the riders jumped off their mares at the end of the race and ran next to them, while they held on to their bridles.16 For Pausanias, it was very similar to the so-called anabatai who still competed in his day, but they rode male horses rather than mares, as in the kalpe. Our testimonia suggest, consequently, that these ‘dismounting’ races could work in one of two ways: either the dismounter jumped on and off the vehicle driven by a charioteer or else the dismounter jumped off only once at the end and finished the race on foot.17 Although Dionysios clearly envisions the chariots in the race which he describes as carrying both a charioteer and a parabates/apobates, the Etymologicum Magnum reports that the term ‘charioteer’ (ἡνίοχος), although properly used of the man holding the reins, could also be used for the parabates.18 These two different ways of holding a ‘dismounting’ race map rather nicely on to the two ‘dismounting’ events at the Great Panathenaia in the first half of the second century. This evidence suggests that the event for the dismounting charioteer at Athena’s festival probably involved a charioteer who jumped off his two-horse zeugos at the end of the race and finished on foot. For contemporary Athenians, the two races were clearly different, and they did not involve the same equipment or perhaps the same skills. For later authors writing after one or both contests ceased to be held, however, the two races must have seemed quite similar; in these circumstances, it would have been easy for these later authors to

16 17

18

contest was still being held at the Great Panathenaia, as we saw in Chapter 5, as well presumably as at other festivals, hence his use of the present tense. Paus. 5.9.2. For these reasons, I am unconvinced by Schultz’s and Neils’ efforts to understand these testimonia as describing different parts of the same race; Schultz 2007: 63 4; Neils and Schultz 2012: 203; cf. also S. G. Miller 2004: 143. Etym. Magn. s.v. ἡνίοχος.

355

356

Appendix 3

amalgamate the two races into one and to call it the apobatic competition, which, for them, was clearly the better known of the two events. If different cities were accustomed to holding similar races in slightly different ways, then these distinctions would have further increased the confusion for later authors and so subsequently also for modern scholars.

Appendix 4

The Pyrrhiche and the Tribal Team Events

While there is general agreement about the importance of the pyrrhiche at the Panathenaia, scholars have not agreed on how the contests were organised. For many researchers, these competitions were, indeed, organised tribally; as such, they were exactly parallel to the other team contests at the festival.1 This interpretation, however, is not universally accepted; other students of the event maintain that these competitions were not organised by tribe, but they were, indeed, restricted to Athenian citizens.2 Those scholars adopting this second position do not explain how these teams were actually assembled and organised, nor how the Athenians were able to enforce the restrictions in practice. In the face of such disagreement, a reevaluation of the evidence is necessary. Despite the paucity of evidence for all the team events, we shall see that our best evidence, the list of prizes from the 380s, indicates that the pyrrhiche was tribally organised. This interpretation is consistent with the rest of our testimonia for the contest and, indeed, with the repeated use of tribes and demes to organise participants throughout the festival in the period after the invention of the Kleisthenic system. Our evidence for the pyrrhiche and, indeed, all the tribal team contests is extremely limited: only two fragmentary monuments commemorate victories at the Great Panathenaia (Table 5.16), while a third, the base dedicated by Atarbos, memorialises a success at the Little Panathenaia.3 Consequently, we must begin our discussion with our best evidence, the section of the prize list from 380s bc which records the prizes for the team events. This part of the text begins at line 132 with the heading ‘victory prizes’ (νικητήρι[α]). Immediately below it are the prizes for the boys’ pyrrhichistai, the beardless youths’ pyrrhichistai, the men’s pyrrhichistai, 1

2

3

E.g. Neils 1994a: 151 2; Kyle 1992: 94 5; Scarpi 1979: 85 6; Golden 1998: 111; R. Osborne 1993: 30 1; Crowther 1985: 286; G. Anderson 2003: 166; Shear 2003b: 90 with note 7; cf. P. Wilson 2000: 37. E.g. Davies 1967: 36 7; Ceccarelli 1998: 33 5; Ceccarelli 2004: 95 9; Pritchard 2015: 36 8; cf. Parker 2005: 256 with note 16. SEG LIII 202 IG II3.4 435; above Chapter 3.

357

358

Appendix 4

the euandria and the torch-race; all these entries occupy one line each, except for the torch-race, which is placed in two lines to record the prize for the team and the prize for the individual winning racer.4 The entries for the euandria and the torch-race team specifically state that the prizes are for the winning tribe (φυλῆι νικώσει). With the exception of the individual winning torch-racer, who receives a hydria as his prize, all the teams are awarded oxen worth 100 drachmai. This section is followed by a separate entry for the victory prizes for the contest of ships; again the prizes are oxen, and the first-place team is described as ‘for the winning tribe’.5 As I have discussed elsewhere, the remaining space in this column should be assigned to the prizes for the anthippasia and the cyclic chorus.6 The anthippasia was certainly tribally organised, as two victory monuments mentioning the tribe indicate.7 The entries in this part of the list, consequently, are united by several features, hence their grouping here: they are for teams, not individuals; the prize is an ox or oxen; and, of the six events in question, five were certainly tribal. Logic and the design of the text further suggest that the pyrrhiche, the euandria and the torch-race were all listed together under the single heading ‘victory prizes’ not simply because of the team nature of the event and the prizes of oxen, but also due to the tribal organisation of all the teams. Furthermore, the section immediately above lines 132–8, the special contests ‘for warriors’,8 also seems to have been tribally organised, as we saw in Chapter 5. This set of entries for the team events comes from the bottom of the right column of the text and low down on the stele.9 When the mason came to inscribe this part of the list, there was not very much uninscribed stone left, and the rest of the text had to fit on it. If he had included the notation ‘for the winning tribe’ (φυλῆι νικώσει) in each of the pyrrhiche entries, he would have needed three additional lines, one for each class, but there was very probably not enough space left on the stele for three more lines.10 In order to get the list to fit on the stone, this information had to be omitted, hence the text as we have it today.11 Since all the entries under the heading ‘victory 4 5

6 7

8 10

11

SEG LIII 192.132 8; Shear 2003b: pl. 6. SEG LIII 192.139 43. The first place team also seems to have received 200 drachmai for the feast. SEG LIII 192.144 53; Shear 2003b: 91, 93. SEG LIII 197 IG II3.4 243; 198 IG II3.4 251. For the cyclic chorus as tribal, see above Chapter 3. 9 SEG LIII 192.119 31. Shear 2003b: 90 4. Shear 2003b: pl. 6. The omission of the event in line 137 was probably an accident, and just enough uninscribed space exists in this line for the word λαμπάδι. There is not room in lines 133 5 for this notation, as there is in lines 136, 137 and 140.

The Pyrrhiche and the Tribal Team Events

prizes’ were for tribal teams, the omissions in the lines for the pyrrhiche were presumably considered to be unproblematic. The layout and design of the prize list, consequently, requires the three competitions in the pyrrhiche to have been tribally organised, just like all the other team contests, and, indeed, like many other aspects of the festival at this time. Anyone who wishes to believe that the pyrrhiche was not so organised needs to explain the preserved design and logic of the prize list.12 Despite this clear evidence, it has been objected that the events in the pyrrhiche at the Panathenaia cannot possibly have been tribally organised, because the extant victory monuments do not preserve the name of the winning tribe.13 Since none of the three inscriptions is complete, we cannot be sure what was and what was not included in the original texts. Furthermore, the memorials for the torch-race show that we cannot assume that the tribes had to be named on such structures: on IG II2 3019 = IG II3.4 430 and IG II2 3023 = IG II3.4 431, the winning tribes, Akamantis and Kekropis respectively, are mentioned, but, on SEG LVI 230 = IG II3.4 427, neither the demotic nor the tribe of the winning gymnasiarchos was included; as the editors of SEG note, the absence of this information must indicate that the structure was set up in the deme of Acharnai, where it was found, rather than in the city centre. There was evidently no single set pattern for memorialising victories in the tribal contests at the Panathenaia,14 very probably because the prizes were oxen, which could not be mounted on a structure, unlike the tripods awarded to the successful teams in the dithyrambic competitions at the City Dionysia and the Thargelia and in the anthippasia at the Olympieia.15 Indeed, we should not understand the (required) victory monuments from Dionysos’ festival and their inscriptions as providing the only way to memorialise team victories in classical Athens. Doing so will certainly not help us to understand the pyrrhiche and the related commemorative structures at the Panathenaia. In addition, as we saw in Chapter 8, team events were normally tribal in the classical period; the only exceptions were the dramatic competitions at the City Dionysia and the Lenaia, and even comedy at Dionysos’ festival had become tribal by the 330s. The dance in arms at Athena’s celebration should conform to this pattern.

12 13 14

15

As both Davies and Ceccarelli have failed to do; above note 2. Ceccarelli 2004: 96 7; cf. Ceccarelli 1998: 34. For such monuments, see Shear 2003a; Goette 2007b. It is worth noting that memorials for individual tribal victories also need not mention the tribe, as Agora XVIII C195 IG II3.4 578 demonstrates. Tripod as prize for Olympieia: above Chapter 5 note 108.

359

360

Appendix 4

Paola Ceccarelli has further claimed that the absence of tribal organisation in the contests for pyrrhiche at the Panathenaia lies in its antiquity, that it was already on the programme before the Kleisthenic reforms and ‘it would not have been tampered with’ in 508/7 bc.16 If this reasoning is correct, then it should also apply to the apobatic race, which was also included in the games before 508/7. Competitors in this race, however, certainly represented their tribes after 508/7, as the second-century victors’ lists conclusively demonstrate (Table 5.12). If one competition was altered after the Kleisthenic reforms, then the pyrrhiche could also have become tribally organised at this time, as seems, in fact, to have been the case. The ‘antiquity’ of the dance in arms, accordingly, does not demonstrate that the event was not tribally organised.17 As this discussion has made clear, our total evidence for the pyrrhiche is distinctly limited. The best and most important information comes from the list of prizes, which shows that the competitions in the dance in arms must have been tribally organised, hence the location of their entries at the bottom of the right column among the other contests for tribal teams. This organisation of the pyrrhiche makes it consistent with all the other competitions in Athena’s games. In this programme, events are either open to all contestants or they are restricted to Athenian citizens. The local competitors are identified by their tribal affiliations, and it is precisely this element which sets them apart from athletes from other parts of the Greek world. In this binary system, which we have seen repeatedly in play in the processes of identity creation, there is no third option between tribal and open events and, indeed, all the known participants in the pyrrhiche are Athenians (Table 5.16). This form of organisation was not restricted to the games; rather, it was repeated throughout the festival, as we have seen repeatedly in our discussions, and it was a particularly distinctive feature of the Great Panathenaia. 16 17

Ceccarelli 2004: 97; Ceccarelli 1998: 33. Despite Ceccarelli’s claims, Isaios 5.36 is irrelevant to these problems; Ceccarelli 2004: 96; cf. Ceccarelli 1998: 33 4. What is at stake here is the incompetence of Dikaiogenes as choregos, not whether the contests in question were tribally organised, information which is not relevant to Isaios’ point; cf. Davies 1967: 36 7. The absence of the pyrrhiche from IG II2 1138 is also irrelevant, because the choruses all seem to be cyclic and to map on to the cyclic choruses listed in [Xenophon], Athenaion Politeia 3.4; contra: Ceccarelli 2004: 97. Indeed, on the basis of Ceccarelli’s argument about IG II2 1138, no Panathenaic team competition ought to have been tribal, but we know that the euandria, the torch race, the contest of ships and the anthippasia all certainly were contested by teams representing their tribes.

Appendix 5

The Date of IG II2 3079 = IG II3.4 528

In the archonship of Nikias in the earlier part of the third century bc, Glaukon, the son of Eteokles, of Aithalidai successfully fulfilled his duties as agonothetes and, like contemporary holders of this position, he set up a monument to commemorate his term in office.1 This structure took the form of a small building, as we know from the extant fragments of three epistyle blocks.2 The block from the front of the monument preserves the inscription commemorating Glaukon’s agonothesia and the victory of the men’s chorus from the tribe Leontis, while the fragments of the blocks from the two sides unusually show sculpted crowns commemorating Glaukon’s tenures as phylarchos, hoplite general (twice) and agonothetes and his victories in the anthippasia at the Olympieia and the Great Panathenaia; while four of the crowns are simply olive, the agonothesia is commemorated with one of ivy, and the two olive crowns for the anthippasia are further embellished with fillets. Glaukon’s agonothesia may be dated by the reference to the archon Nikias, who has traditionally been identified as the archon who held office in 282/1.3 Recently, however, this date has been called into question, and the archon has been identified as Nikias of Otryne, who held office in 266/5.4 Since this monument preserves important evidence for the Great Panathenaia, as well as two other festivals in early Hellenistic Athens and the career of Glaukon, its date must be reconsidered. As we shall see, our evidence indicates that the monument should, indeed, be dated to 282/1 and, consequently, it represents the latest evidence both for the anthippasia and for the tribal team contests at the Great Panathenaia. Further consideration of Glaukon’s career also suggests that his victory in Athena’s festival must date before this year and most probably in 290. The inscription on the front of the monument specifies that Glaukon was agonothetes in the archonship of Nikias. It is presumably this tenure in 1 3

4

IG II2 3079 IG II3.4 528. 2 Goette 2007a: 141 3, fig. 14. E.g. Shear, Jr 1978: 38; Tracy 2003a: 86; Kirchner in IG II2; G. Oliver 2007c: 243 note 72; Paschidis 2008: 511; cf. Humphreys 2007: 70. Humphreys 2007: 70 2; M. J. Osborne 2009: 89; M. J. Osborne 2015: 66; M. J. Osborne 2016: 90 1.

361

362

Appendix 5

office which was honoured by the ivy crown on the left side of the monument.5 Since Stephen Tracy has identified all the inscriptions in the crowns as the work of the Cutter of Agora I 3238 and I 4169,6 they should all have been cut at the same time, while the association between the ivy crown and the front of the monument ought to indicate that all parts of the monument are contemporary. The offices must date either to the archonship of Nikias or to the years before he held office. Traditionally, this Nikias has been identified as the man who was archon in 282/1.7 He was not the only man named Nikias to hold this office in the second quarter of the third century, however: in 266/5, the archon was also named Nikias, and came from the deme of Otryne.8 In state decrees, the office holder of 266/5 is regularly given his demotic Otryneus to distinguish him from the earlier archon of 282/1, who is not identified by his demotic or any other epithet either in state decrees or in honorary decrees voted by the hippeis and the Tarantinoi.9 Similarly, the partially preserved list of officials for 266/5 clearly listed the archon not just as Nikias, but as Nikias of Otryne.10 Our evidence, consequently, suggests that, in decrees of the city and other public documents, the archon of 266/5 was listed with his demotic so that he could be distinguished from the man of the same name who held office in 282/1.11 If our monument and other similar ones commemorating the services of agonothetai are correctly understood as public monuments,12 then they ought to follow the conventions of the city’s public documents and to identify the archon of 266/5 as Nikias of Otryne, rather than simply as Nikias with no demotic. This evidence all suggests that Glaukon held the office of agonothetes in 282/1, rather than in 266/5. The history of the tribal team events at the Great Panathenaia also points towards an earlier, rather than later, date for the monument celebrating 5 6 7

8 9

10 11

12

Contra: Paschidis 2008: 163, 510. Tracy 1988: 304 5; Tracy 2003a: 86. On the career of the cutter, see Tracy 2003a: 94 8. Above note 3. Determining the date of the monument needs to be a separate process from elucidating the history of the agonothesia in the third century, because otherwise the argument becomes circular; see below Appendix 6. M. J. Osborne 2009: 89. Nikias Otryneus: IG II2 665. 1 3 IG II3.1 917.1 3; 666.1 3 IG II3.1 918.1 3; 668.17 18 IG II3.1 920.17 18; cf. Shear, Jr 1978: 38 note 94; M. J. Osborne 2006: 73; Paschidis 2008: 511. Nikias of 282/1: IG II2 682.53 4 IG II3.1 985.53 4; Agora XVI 181.2 4 IG II3.1 881.2 4; SEG XXI 525.2 3 (hippeis); XLVI 167.4 (Tarantinoi). SEG LI 144.1 with M. J. Osborne 2015: 71 2. Of course, private associations, such as the thiasos of the Mother of the Gods, did not need to follow the lead of the city in their own (private) documents, such as IG II2 1273, which refers simply to the archon Nikias in lines 6 and 29. He seems to be the archon of 266/5, who is (unusually) listed here without his demotic; M. J. Osborne 2004: 203. As they are so categorised in IG II3.4; see IG II3.4 518 39.

The Date of IG II2 3079 = IG II3.4 528

Glaukon’s agonothesia. With the exception of the contests of ships and the anthippasia, our testimonia for these team competitions in the fourth century continue into the 320s (Table 5.16).13 In contrast, the anthippasia is attested into the early third century, but the structure for Glaukon’s agonothesia provides the latest closely dated evidence for this contest. The competition thus existed at least about forty-two years later than the other team contests; if Glaukon’s tenure in office is dated to 266/5, then the anthippasia is attested about fifty-eight years after the other team events.14 As we saw in Chapter 5, the absence of evidence for tribal team events after the 320s suggests that they were affected by the change from the choregia to the agonothesia and that they proved to be too expensive to maintain under the new system at a time when the city of Athens was having financial difficulties.15 Indeed, they do not seem to have survived very long after the institution of the agonothesia. It is unlikely that the anthippasia had a history which was very different than that of the other tribal contests and so continued significantly later into the third century. This history of the anthippasia is reinforced by our other evidence for the event, which was also held at the Olympieia.16 For this festival as well, the latest closely dated reference to the competition comes from the monument for Glaukon’s agonothesia.17 A less well-dated tribal decree honouring a phylarchos who was victorious at the Olympieia should also belong between 286 and about 270.18 As our evidence from the Panathenaia and the Olympieia indicates, the anthippasia did not continue to be contested at Athens after the earlier part of the third century. In turn, this history points towards an earlier, rather than a later, date for Glaukon’s agonothesia, and thus also for his victories. Two separate lines of evidence, consequently, both lead towards an earlier date for Glaukon’s monument, rather than a later one. In the case 13

14

15 16 18

That a competition for beardless pyrrhichistai was certainly included in the Little Panathenaia of 323/2 suggests that the tribal team contests continued to be part of the Great Panathenaia at this time; SEG LIII 202 IG II3.4 435; above Chapter 3. Drawing on Deinarchos 16 fr. 3, I use 324 bc as the date for the latest certain attestation of other tribal team events; see Table 5.16. Financial difficulties: G. Oliver 2006: 112 21; G. Oliver 2007b: 277 88; cf. G. Oliver 2001: 46. Above Chapter 5 note 108. 17 IG II2 3079 crown I IG II3.4 528 crown I. Agora XVI 203. Tracy identifies this text as the work of the Cutter of Agora I 3238 and I 4169, who was active between 286 and 239/8 (archonship of Athenodoros); Tracy 2003a: 80, 87. Since our inscription does not include any vacat spaces, it should date before 270; for this dating criterion, see Tracy 2003a: 96 7. Consequently, this inscription cannot belong to the late phases of the cutter’s career, as Woodhead suggests; Woodhead 1997: 290. It is worth noting that all evidence for the Olympieia ceases in the earlier part of the third century and it does not reappear again until the Roman imperial period; Parker 2005: 477; Mikalson 1998: 200 1.

363

364

Appendix 5

of the anthippasia, this structure provides the latest securely datable testimonia for this contest, which is otherwise known from fourth-century and less closely dated early third-century material. In the context of the Panathenaia, the event is attested well after all the other tribal competitions, but there is no evidence that it had a significantly different history from these other events. This evidence also fits together with the ways in which the archon Nikias of 282/1 is distinguished from his later homonym, Nikias Otryneus of 266/5. The reference to the archon Nikias without further specification on the monument for Glaukon’s agonothesia, together with the history of the anthippasia, suggests that the year 282/1, rather than 266/5, is the best date for the structure. As Paschalis Paschidis’ discussion makes clear, this date is also compatible with our other information about Glaukon’s career.19 Dating Glaukon’s monument to 282/1 has further consequences for our understanding of his career and especially for the history of the anthippasia and the Panathenaia. When the monument was erected after Glaukon’s successful agonothesia, he had already been honoured for his good services as phylarchos and as hoplite general, probably in two different years. Enough time had also passed for the demos to vote him an ivy crown for his agonothesia, presumably the same office which led to the erection of the monument. The victories at the Great Panathenaia and the Olympieia were most likely won when he was phylarchos, a relatively junior position in the Athenian military.20 Glaukon cannot have held this office in 282/1 bc, because the names of eleven of the twelve phylarchoi for this year are known: his tribe, Antigonis, was commanded by Dionysios, the son of Pythokritos, of Gargettos.21 It also seems likely that Glaukon was phylarchos before he became hoplite general for the first time, since this succession of offices appears to have been normal.22 Since the Panathenaia of 286 was cancelled,23 Glaukon cannot have led his tribe to victory in that year. Most probably, his success came at the festival in 290, a year which would fit with the rest of his career.24 His service in the junior 19 20

21 22 23 24

Paschidis 2008: 162 7, 510 13 with further references. Contra: Paschidis 2008: 511. I am unclear why Paschidis separates his office as phylarchos from the victories, which can only have been won when Glaukon held this position. SEG XXI 525.1 3, 24 33; XLVI 167.3 5, 19 31. For parallels, see IG II2 2854 IG II3.4 292; G. Oliver 2007c: 161 2 with further references. Above Appendix 1 note 1. The restoration of Glaukon’s name as phylarchos in SEG XXI 357.17 IG II3.1 949.17 and the association of this position with the office of IG II2 3079 crown II IG II3.4 528 crown II is both adventurous and uncertain; contra: commentary on IG II3.1 949; cf. G. Oliver 2007c:

The Date of IG II2 3079 = IG II3.4 528

office of phylarchos would have put him in a good position to become hoplite general twice in the years immediately after the revolution from Demetrios in 286.25 That a man could be prominent under the oligarchic regime of the later 290s and then still play a role in the democracy brought in by the revolution is demonstrated by the career of Olympiodoros, who was archon in 294/3 and 293/2, but also seems to have played an important role in the revolution against Demetrios.26 Similarly, the extensive activities of Phaidros of Sphettos between 296/5 and 286 did not prevent him from being agonothetes in 282/1.27 Men’s roles and political positions may also have changed over time. Consequently, Glaukon’s absence from Athens in the years after the Chremonidean War does not require a parallel absence in the years before 286.28 Furthermore, locating Glaukon’s tenure as phylarchos, and so his tribe’s victory at the Panathenaia, in 290 also brings the latest closely dated evidence for the anthippasia closer in time to the other attestations of the tribal team contests (Table 5.16). Glaukon’s victory in the anthippasia at the Olympieia must have been won in this same year, a dating which is consistent with our other evidence for Zeus’ festival. It seems to have continued to be celebrated in the period between 286 and 270, but there is no evidence for it after about 270. The evidence from the Olympieia and the Great Panathenaia together suggests that tribal team competitions in the anthippasia did not continue to be included in either celebration after about the first thirty years of the third century. Rather, like the other similar contests at Athena’s festival, they seem to have been discontinued in the early third century. We must understand them, consequently, as a distinctive feature of Athenian life in the classical and very early Hellenistic periods only.

25

26

27 28

243 note 72. Line 17 of IG II3.1 949 is better left as [ c. 6 ]ων Αἰθαλίδης; consequently, this text cannot provide any evidence for Glaukon’s tenure as phylarchos and the date when his tribe’s cavalry contingent won at the Great Panathenaia. For a similar lapse of time between being phylarchos and general, see IG II2 2854 IG II3.4 292. Paschidis dates his tenure as phylarchos to ‘the early 280’s’, a date which is presumably before the revolution in 286; Paschidis 2008: 511. Archon: M. J. Osborne 2009: 85; M. J. Osborne 2012a: 34 5; against Demetrios: Paus. 1.26.1 2; for his career, see Paschidis 2008: 133 9 with further references. IG II2 682.21 56 IG II3.1 985.21 56. Contra: Paschidis 2008: 511; Humphreys 2007: 70, 72.

365

Appendix 6

The Officials of the Great Panathenaia in the Third Century bc

The recent publication of the honours for the sitophylakes or grain commissioners of the archonship of Athenodoros has revealed the existence of a new official connected with Athena’s festival, the treasurer of the Panathenaia (ταμίας τῶν Παναθηναίων), as well as other important information concerning the city at this time.1 Understanding this treasurer’s position among the various officials of the third-century festival requires us to reconsider the personnel and the scope of their duties in the early Hellenistic period. Of the different officials involved in the celebration, the most important were the athlothetai, the agonothetes and the newly attested treasurer. As we shall see, these last two positions were particularly concerned with the festival’s finances, which must always have been complicated, because of the festival’s position at the end of the first month of the new official year. For much of the third century, the city’s larger financial problems must also have caused additional strain. In order to ensure that the celebration took place as it was supposed to and the goddess was properly honoured, the Athenians adopted a number of solutions, particularly the invention of new offices specifically connected with the Great Panathenaia. These new positions appear to have caused a certain amount of fluidity among the officials and their duties as the Athenians tried to work out the best possible way to put on the festival for the goddess. Of the various officials connected with the celebration in the third century, only the athlothetai existed in the late 330s, when Aristotle described their duties in the Athenaion Politeia. At that time, the ten athlothetai managed (διοικοῦσι) the procession and the games, they had the peplos made and, together with the council, they had the prize amphorae manufactured; at the time of the games, they presented the oil to the victors.2 Unlike most Athenian officials, their term of office was for four years and, from 4 Hekatombaion, they had the right to eat in the 1

366

2

IG II3.1 1023. The tamias is mentioned in lines 13 and 39. For the editio princeps, see Kritzas 2015. Arist. Ath. Pol. 60.1, 3.

Officials in the Third Century BC

prytaneion; like the treasurers of Athena, they probably served from one Panathenaia to the next.3 As the length of the term of office and the references to the games and the peplos make clear, the Great Panathenaia was the primary focus of the athlothetai, who oversaw the entire operation at this time. Their duties required them to work with other individuals and groups, such as the boule and the treasurers of Athena, to whom the olive oil for the prizes was entrusted by the (eponymous) archon.4 The role of the athlothetai did not end in the late classical period, as we know from the honours voted for them in 239/8. At that time, the board continued to oversee the festival and the games, and they also apparently made sacrifices on behalf of the boule and the demos; other duties were probably mentioned in the now lost sections of the text.5 The similarities between Aristotle’s description and the honorary inscription suggest that the duties of this board of officials did not change very much between the late 330s and 239/8. It seems very likely, therefore, that the board continued to serve for four years and to be made up of representatives from each tribe, just as it had been in Aristotle’s day. As these two texts make clear, the focus of the board’s activity was the smooth and successful production of the festival; the financing of the occasion was not one of their main activities. Despite the similarities of these two testimonia concerning the athlothetai, the process of organising and managing the Great Panathenaia must have been significantly affected by the abolition of the liturgical system and the institution of the agonothesia by Demetrios of Phaleron at some time between 317 and 307.6 With this change, individual tribal teams were no longer sponsored by choregoi and gymnasiarchoi, who also generally oversaw the team’s preparation.7 Instead, expenses for all tribal teams were under the control of a single agonothetes, and our sources are silent about the training of the teams. Presumably, this new official was also responsible for funding other expenses which had previously been liturgies, particularly the sacrificial animals offered by the tribes, their feasts and, before 229 bc, the roles of the metics and their daughters in the procession. When this office appears in Athenian honorary decrees in the third century, the emphasis is frequently on the (large) sum of his own money which the 3 4 5

6

Term: Arist. Ath. Pol. 60.1; Davison 1958: 31; prytaneion: Arist. Ath. Pol. 62.2. Olive oil: Arist. Ath. Pol. 60.3. IG II2 784.7 13 IG II3.1 1022.7 13. The similarities between this text and Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia 60.1 suggest that we should follow Kirchner, rather than the editors of IG II3.1, and restore the end of line 7 as ἐπεμελήθησαν [τῆς διοικήσεως τῶ]|ν Παναθηναίων. For a (restored) parallel, cf. IG II2 674.18 19 IG II3.1 900.18 19. Above Chapter 4 note 56. 7 P. Wilson 2000: 35 6, 71.

367

368

Appendix 6

honorand paid out as agonothetes.8 In some cases, the amounts are specified: Charias of Kydathenaion spent a now lost sum of talents when he held this office in 256/5, and Eurykleides of Kephisia expended seven talents and more of his own money.9 Similarly, in the second century, we learn that, as agonothetes of the Theseia, Nikogenes of Philaidai spent more than 2,600 drachmai of his own money, and his expenditures included giving the boule 1,200 drachmai for the attendance fee (καθέσιμον) and the prytaneis 100 drachmai for the sacrifice, while Miltiades, the son of Zoilos, of Marathon paid out over 3,390 drachmai in this same office and made the same expenditures to the boule and the prytaneis.10 Subsequently, as agonothetes of the Panathenaia in 142/1, Miltiades, ‘when the revenues especially ass[igned] did not suffice and [when] more mon[ey] w[as lackin]g, making not one [e]xcuse, [adva]nced his own [mone]y without interest, and he also [spe]nt not a little from his private [funds]’ and he apparently paid for ‘al[l th]e expenses [from his private fu]nds’.11 As this epigraphical evidence indicates, an important aspect of carrying out the agonothesia successfully was willingness to expend one’s own money on the festival(s), especially when the funds provided by the city did not suffice.12 For celebrations other than the Panathenaia, the activities of the agonothetai were not limited to financing the events, and we also find them involved with the sacrifices, overseeing the games, putting on the proagon (preliminary presentation) at the Dionysia and adding an additional competition to existing festivities.13 In the second century, the agonothetai of the Theseia were involved with all aspects necessary for the smooth running of the occasion.14 8

9

10

11 12

13

14

IG II2 657.46 7 IG II3.1 875.46 7; IG II3.1 1160.4 7; SEG XXXIX 125.18 19 IG II3.1 991.18 19. Not all agonothetai were so lavish with their own money, as we learn from their honorary decrees, which omit any clause mentioning the use of their own funds; IG II2 682.53 60 IG II3.1 985.53 60; IG II2 780 IG II3.1 995; SEG XLV 101.30 2 IG II3.1 857.30 2. Charias: SEG XXXIX 125.18 19 IG II3.1 991.18 19; Eurykleides: IG II3.1 1160.4 5; cf. IG II2 749.5 6 IG II3.1 1035.5 6. Nikogenes: IG II2 956.14 15, 17 19 (in 161/0); Miltiades: 958.12 13, 14 16 (in 153/2); cf. 957.9 10 (in 157/6). On the kathesimon, see Rhodes and Lewis 1997: 55; Bugh 2013: 116 17. IG II2 968.42 5, 55. Compare P. Wilson 2000: 273 6; Hakkarainen 1997: 22 3; Mikalson 2016: 232 3 and cf. 214 16. Sacrifices: IG II2 657.40 1 IG II3.1 877.40 1; 682.54 5 IG II3.1 985.54 5; 780.7 12, 14 15 IG II3.1 995.7 12, 14 15; SEG XXXIX 125.11 13 IG II3.1 991.11 13; games: IG II2 682.55 6 IG II3.1 985.55 6; 780.17 18 IG II3.1 995.17 18; SEG XLV 101.30 1 IG II3.1 857.30 1; cf. SEG XXXIX 125.14 15 IG II3.1 991.14 15; proagon: IG II2 780.15 16 IG II3.1 995.15 16; additional competition: IG II2 657.43 5 IG II3.1 877.43 5. IG II2 956.1 22; 957.1 13; 958.1 18.

Officials in the Third Century BC

For the Great Panathenaia, the agonothesia and its related system can never have worked well. Since the festival took place towards the end of Hekatombaion, the first month of the official year, expenditures must have been required more than twenty-eight days before the sacrifices, that is, in the official year before the celebration actually took place. Such expenses are actually attested in 415/4, when the hellenotamiai or treasurers of the Delian League made a payment of 9 talents to the athlothetai on the twentieth day of the second prytany of the year.15 The tribal teams, and especially those participating in the competitions for the cyclic chorus, most likely needed more than three weeks to get ready, and their preparations had to be funded.16 Since Athena’s festival remained under the control of the athlothetai, as we know from the honours voted to these officials in 239/8, the chief role of the agonothetai was as sources of money beyond the funds supplied by the city. In this system, as it seems to have been working in 307/6 and the years immediately afterwards, agonothetai in both the year before and the year of the penteteric celebrations would have had to make significant expenditures towards Athena’s festival, but only the official of the latter year would actually have had the privilege of participating in the proceedings. In addition, men holding office in these two years must have needed to spend considerably more money than the agonothetai in the other two years of the penteteric cycle. That seventy-two teams needed funding at this time brings out clearly the disparity in expenditures from one year to the next.17 It is easy to imagine that eligible men may have sought to avoid being agonothetes in the year before and especially in the year of the Great Panathenaia. Their reluctance, in turn, would have caused significant problems for Athena’s celebrations, difficulties which would have been visible not only to the inhabitants of the city, but also to all visitors from abroad. A shabby festival would not have encouraged international competitors to attend in the future, nor would it have pleased the goddess. Several potential solutions existed for these problems. Most obviously, two men could be selected as agonothetai in the year of the Great 15

16

17

IG I3 370.66 8. Since the athlothetai were not associated with the Little Panathenaia until the late second century bc, this payment must be for expenses in advance of the penteteric celebration of 414, irrespective of how we want to restore the calendar of this year; cf. Davison 1958: 30 2; Develin 1984: 136 7; Pritchard 2015: 32 3; Osborne and Rhodes 2017: 420; contra: Rhodes 1981: 669; Meiggs and Lewis 1988: 236; B. Nagy 1992: 63; Pritchett 1977: 301 2; calendrical issues: Meritt 1978: 291 2; Gomme, Andrewes and Dover 1970: 266 70. The games took place before the sacrifices on 28 Hekatombaion; Mikalson 1975: 34, 199; Tracy 1991: 135 6, 142 3; Neils 1992a: 15. Seventy two teams: above Chapter 5. They need not have been funded at the same level as the teams sponsored by the speaker of Lysias 21 at the end of the fifth century; Lys. 21.1 5.

369

370

Appendix 6

Panathenaia, and the financial burdens could be divided between them. If one man had responsibility only for Athena’s celebration, then his term in office need not correspond to the city’s official year, and it could run from one festival to the next, as the terms of the athlothetai seem to have done. That Miltiades, the son of Zoilos, of Marathon made repairs on the Akropolis, in the Odeion and in the Anakeion during his time as agonothetes of the Panathenaia in 142 bc suggests that the office was not linked to the official year in the second century;18 if it had been, it is difficult to understand how there would have been enough time for all this work to be finished before the festival took place. Most likely, Miltiades held office from one festival to the next. Another potential solution was the invention of further official positions so that the Great Panathenaia could be funded by more than one man. Such a scenario would explain the institution of the treasurer of the Panathenaia, an office known only from the decrees for the sitophylakes.19 Agathaios of Prospalta, whose tenure is attested by these documents, was evidently a wealthy man, because he also served as agonothetes in 252/1.20 Voting honours for successful agonothetai was yet another way for the city to encourage participation in the office, and such rewards are attested as early as 282/1.21 As this brief discussion has made clear, the Athenians made use of all three of these solutions to the complications caused by the position of the Great Panathenaia in the first month of the official year. Our evidence for the third century, limited as it is, suggests that the Athenians were also experimenting with different ways to resolve the problems caused by the Panathenaia; consequently, not all of these solutions were necessarily in use at the same time. Our first evidence for attempts to address the complications caused by the Great Panathenaia belongs in 282/1, when the epigraphical evidence indicates that two different men held the office of agonothetes. As we discussed in Appendix 5, this year saw Glaukon of Aithalidai serving in this position. That his duties primarily concerned the City Dionysia is suggested by the depiction of the crown voted for him by the demos: on his monument, it was shown as an ivy crown, not as an olive crown, as we might have expected.22 In this same year, however, Phaidros of Sphettos was also holding the position of agonothetes, as we know from his honorary 18 20 21

22

Repairs: IG II2 968.46 7; on the date, see above Chapter 1 note 1. 19 Above note 1. IG II2 780 IG II3.1 995; Kritzas 2015: 140 1. IG II2 3079 crown VI IG II3.4 528 crown VI; for later examples, see IG II2 780 IG II3.1 995; SEG XXXIX 125 IG II3.1 991. IG II2 3079 crown VI IG II3.4 528 crown VI; Goette 2007a: 142, fig. 14, where the crown is mislabelled C.IV.

Officials in the Third Century BC

decree.23 The description of his services is quite general, and it does not give any indication that he was not the only holder of this office in this year.24 Since 282/1 was the year of the penteteric celebration for Athena, it seems likely that the two men divided the duties, so that Glaukon took care of the City Dionysia, Phaidros was involved with the Great Panathenaia and the rest of the festivals were distributed between them. Such a division of labours would explain why the epigraphical texts refer to both men simply as ‘the agonothetes’ and why they are individually presented as if they were the only holder of the office in this year. The decision to split the responsibilities between two men was also reasonable in view of the city’s financial difficulties at this time.25 Whether the tribal team competitions were still included in the Great Panathenaia is not clear from our evidence. If they did continue, their expense may particularly have necessitated having two agonothetai in the same year. The Athenians’ attempts to resolve the problems posed by Athena’s celebration appear to have evolved by 266/5. In this year, a list of the city’s officials includes Deinias of Erchia, who was listed as [- - 9–10 - Παν]αθηναίων.26 Since Deinias is a single official and not a board, he cannot have been an athlothetes, and nor can he have been treasurer of the festival, because the word tamias is too short to fill the necessary space and the office is also not attested until the second half of the century, as we shall see below.27 The only other suitable official with a title filling the space is the [ἀγωνοθέτης Παν]αθηναίων, as the position has usually been restored.28 As decrees for highest honours indicate, the agonothesia was sufficiently important to be mentioned along with generalships;29 in this list, too, the position is followed by entries for the hoplite general, the general for supply and the treasurer of the stratiotic fund.30 This context further supports the 23 25 26 28

29

30

IG II2 682.53 6 IG II3.1 985.53 6. 24 Shear 2020: 282 3. Financial difficulties: above Appendix 5 note 15. SEG LI 144.3 and cf. M. J. Osborne 2015: 71 2. 27 Shear 2020: 283 note 60. E.g. Meritt 1968: 284 5; G. Oliver 2007c: 243 note 72; Paschidis 2008: 512; Shear 2020: 283 note 60; contra: M. J. Osborne 2015: 72; M. J. Osborne 2016: 91. E.g. IG II2 682.21 56 IG II3.1 985.21 56; 3079 crowns V VII IG II3.4 528 crowns V VII; SEG XLV 101.23 5, 30 4 IG II3.1 857.23 5, 30 4. SEG LI 144.3, 5 9 and cf. M. J. Osborne 2015: 71 2. Further offices were listed in lines 10 16 after the treasurer of the stratiotic fund, but not enough text is preserved to allow their restoration. Since Osborne has opined that the officials in column 2, as well as the officials in the lost column 1, ‘were the other officers concerned with the organization of the Panathenaia’, it is well to note that no specific roles for the generals and the [ c. 14 15 ]πλοῦ τῶν ναυτικῶν are attested at the festival; M. J. Osborne 2015: 72. Nor is there any obvious separation between officials at the top of column 2 and those lower down, as Osborne implies. Instead, they all seem to be listed without distinction. These same problems also apply to Osborne’s interpretation of SEG XXXII 169 + XXXVIII 158; M. J. Osborne 2015: 73. The multiplication of unknown offices

371

372

Appendix 6

restoration of Deinias’ office. If there was an agonothetes specifically connected with Athena’s celebration, then there must have been at least one other man who took care of the other festivals and who was known generically as the agonothetes.31 It seems likely that this second official in 266/5 was Lysimachos of Athmonon, who is listed immediately after Deinias and right above the hoplite general.32 Irrespective of Lysimachos’ office, we must already be dealing with two men as agonothetai in the years of the penteteric festivities, as the title of Deinias’ office indicates. Since one position is specifically connected with the Panathenaia, the arrangements visible here were not ad hoc, as they apparently were in 282/1, and the situation seems to have been regularised at some point in the intervening sixteen years. Despite these developments, the history of the team tribal contests suggests that they were probably no longer being held at this time. The military needs of the ongoing Chremonidean War may well have been affecting the finances of the festival and thus led to the selection of one agonothetes specifically for the Great Panathenaia. In the aftermath of the Chremonidean War, the Athenians certainly continued the office of agonothetes, as we know from the honorary decrees for Charias of Kydathenaion and Agathaios of Prospalta.33 Since these men served in 256/5 and 252/1 respectively, neither of them was involved in the Great Panathenaia and, indeed, their documents focus on their roles at the City Dionysia. In Agathaios’ case, the connection with Dionysos’ festival is particularly clear, because the first of his two decrees was passed on 20 or 21 Elaphebolion in 252/1, that is, at the assembly held in the theatre immediately after the celebration.34 Charias was rewarded for his efforts with a gold crown.35 His document provides a close parallel for that of Herakleitos of Athmonon, whose contributions to the Great Panathenaia were also rewarded with a gold crown; the similarity between these two

31

32

33

34

35

and association of officials not hitherto known to have roles in the celebration with the Panathenaia in order to avoid the existence of the [ἀγωνοθέτης Παν]αθηναίων will not increase our understanding of the festivities and their staff in the third century bc. As for example in IG II2 3081 IG II3.4 532, which dates to 270/69, the year of the penteteric celebration for Athena. SEG LI 144.4; cf. Meritt 1968: 285; G. Oliver 2007c: 243 note 72; Shear 2020: 283 note 60; M. J. Osborne 2015: 71 2. Charias: SEG XXXIX 125 IG II3.1 991; Agathaios: above note 20. The office is subsequently attested in 239/8, when Homeros held it; IG II3.1 1023.13 14, 40. He cannot have been involved in Athena’s festival, because he is called simply ‘the agonothetes’ and the Great Panathenaia was not held in this year. On the exact date, see M. J. Osborne 2012b: 158 no. 62. For assemblies in the theatre, see above Chapter 8 note 24. SEG XXXIX 125.29 31 IG II3.1 991.29 31.

Officials in the Third Century BC

documents, the various activities which Herakleitos carried out at Athena’s festivities and the announcement of his crown apparently at the goddess’ games all suggest that Herakleitos was agonothetes of the Panathenaia, most probably in 258.36 Evidently, this position was not immediately abolished after the end of the war, but it also disappears from our sources until the middle of the second century. The years after the Chremonidean War, when Athens was not doing well economically,37 seem to be the most likely time for the introduction of the office of the tamias of the Panathenaia, now known from the honours for the sitophylakes of the archonship of Athenodoros.38 The document is silent, however, about what the treasurer actually did. Since the office was held by Agathaios of Prospalta, who was rich enough to be agonothetes in 252/1, it seems likely that this treasurer was expected to contribute his own money towards Athena’s festival. These references to the tamias in the decrees for the sitophylakes require us to re-examine other evidence for officials connected with the Panathenaia at this time. The office should be restored in a list of officials belonging somewhere between about 260 and about 235 and perhaps in the 240s.39 The second line of the document concerns an official of the Panathenaia whose office has traditionally been restored as the [ἀγωνοθέτη]ς Παναθη̣[ναίων].40 As Michael Osborne has rightly observed, there is only room for about five letters before the preserved sigma, and thus the office must be that of the [ταμία]ς Παναθη̣[ναίων] and not of the agonothetes.41 The holder of the office seems to have been [Mikion, the son of Mi]kion, of Ke[phisia].42 For us, his identity is of particular interest because a fragment of a Panathenaic amphora from the second half of the third century has been restored as 36

37 39

40

41

42

IG II2 677 IG II3.1 1034. Charias’ decree shows that the title did not need to be mentioned in the clause praising the honorand, and so its absence in the relevant part of Herakleitos’ decree does not indicate that he was not agonothetes of the Panathenaia; above note 33 and contrast IG II2 780 IG II3.1 995.18 20. Since Herakleitos’ document clearly was not rewarding him with highest honours, it is difficult to imagine what office other than the agonothesia of the goddess’ festival could have been involved. Herakleitos as agonothetes: Kontoleon 1964: 196 7; Nachtergael 1977: 180; cf. Dinsmoor 1931: 175 note 1. On the date, see above Chapter 6 note 67. G. Oliver 2007b: 277 88. 38 Above note 1. SEG XXXII 169.2 3 with M. J. Osborne 2015: 72 3. The overall period is given by the activity of the cutter, and Tracy has dated this particular inscription to the 240s; Tracy 2003a: 128, 132; Tracy 1988: 314 15, no. 2; Tracy 2015b: 293 4; cf. Habicht 1997: 155. E.g. IG II2 1705; Schweigert 1939: 46; Tracy 2015b: 293, 297; contra: Mikalson 1998: 164 note 85. Since the athlothetai were a board, we cannot restore a singular athlothetes here. M. J. Osborne 2015: 73; M. J. Osborne 2016: 91. The lack of space is clear in Schweigert’s photograph; Schweigert 1939: 46. The restoration seems to go back to Koehler and has generally been accepted; see e.g. IG II2 1705; Schweigert 1939: 46; Tracy 2015b: 293, 297.

373

374

Appendix 6

[ταμι]εύοντος |[Μικί]ωνος, ‘when [Miki]on was [tami]as’.43 If these two fragmentary texts have been correctly restored and they both refer to the same man, then together they indicate that the treasurer attested on the jars is the tamias of the festival and not the treasurer of the stratiotic fund, as scholars had previously thought.44 Sherds from the Akropolis, accordingly, provide us with the name of a third treasurer, Eurykleides, probably the brother of Mikion.45 On the evidence of these jars, the tamias of the Panathenaia should also have been involved in some way with the prize amphorae. With the institution of this office, perhaps the new treasurer now oversaw the manufacture of the prizes along with the boule, just as the treasurer of the stratiotic fund had done in the 330s.46 Alternatively, oversight of the collection of the oil may have passed from the (eponymous) archon, who was responsible for this task for much of the fourth century, to the tamias of Athena’s festival.47 Collectively, our very fragmentary evidence attests to at least three different treasurers of the Panathenaia, Agathaios of Prospalta, [Miki]on of Kephisia and Eurykleides, also probably from Kephisia. A fourth tenure in office also seems to be included in the honours for the athlothetai which were voted in Skirophorion 239/8. They are described as ‘the athlothetai . . . when Agathaios of Prospalta [held some (restored) position]’.48 Although this position has been interpreted as the agonothetes of the Panathenaia, it seems much more likely that Agathaios was holding the office of treasurer of the festival.49 Since the decree was passed on 9 Skirophorion of 239/8, just over a month and a half before the Great Panathenaia of 238, these athlothetai must be the board responsible for the festival of 242 who would 43

44

45

46 47 48 49

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 109: Dow 1936: 55 8, fig. 10; G. R. Edwards 1957: 343 no. 27, pl. 82. Neither Dow nor Edwards refers to our list of officials. Treasurer of the stratiotic fund: e.g. Dow 1936: 57; G. R. Edwards 1957: 331, 333 4; Pounder 1983: 249; Shear 2003b: 97; Kritzas 2015: 142. National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1113: Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 65; Dow 1936: 55 8, fig. 9; G. R. Edwards 1957: 325, 331, 343. This fragment is very similar to the sherd with Mikion’s name, and the two jars should be close in date; G. R. Edwards 1957: 343. The connections made here do not allow Mikion to be the son of Eurykleides, as proposed by Barringer; Barringer 2003: 246. Another, nameless treasurer is attested by Agora Excavations, Athens, P 8522: G. R. Edwards 1957: 346 no. 41; Barringer 2003: 248. Arist. Ath. Pol. 49.3. Contrast Arist. Ath. Pol. 60.1. Arist. Ath. Pol. 60.2 3; Shear 2003b: 98 100 with further references. IG II2 784.7 8 IG II3.1 1022.7 8: Ἀγαθαίου Προσπ[αλ]τ[ίου συντελοῦντος]. Agonothetes: Kritzas 2015: 141; treasurer: IG II3.1 1022 commentary. Indeed, the text could easily be restored as: Ἀγαθαίου Προσπ[αλ]τ[ίου ταμιεύοντοςv κα]|ὶ. The restored vacat would match the preserved vacat before Agathaios’ name and set it off. It would also serve to mark off the clause about the games, which is followed in line 10 by a preserved vacat. This use of the vacats conforms to the ways in which this workman, the Cutter of Agora I 3238 and 4196, used blank spaces to articulate his texts; Tracy 2003a: 95.

Officials in the Third Century BC

be honoured at the upcoming games, presumably with gold crowns announced at the athletic games, hence the delay in passing their decree.50 On 9 Skirophorion of 239/8, it was much too soon to propose honours for the athlothetai responsible for the upcoming celebration, because no one knew yet whether they would merit such rewards. That the treasurer of the Panathenaia was associated with a particular board of athlothetai suggests both that their terms of office were parallel, four years from one Panathenaia to the next, and that the tamias and the board worked closely together. If these assumptions are correct, then the reference to Agathaios in the honours for the sitophylakes of 239/8 must indicate that he took on the office for a second term, which would end shortly with the Great Panathenaia of 238. Perhaps no other suitable man was willing to do the job, as happened before the penteteric festival of 142, when Miltiades, the son of Zoilos, of Marathon volunteered to be agonothetes.51 That all the men who seem to have held the office of treasurer are known to have been wealthy further suggests that spending one’s own money was expected in this position. As this discussion has made clear, during the third century, the Athenians used a variety of different strategies to ensure that the Great Panathenaia was put on in the best way possible and that financial problems would not affect the occasion. Not all of the possible arrangements were in use at the same time, and the Athenians appear to have been trying to find the best possible solution at any particular moment. Nor were these solutions limited to the third century, because some of these strategies continued to be used in the following century. The tamias of the Panathenaia appears on a fragmentary white-ground Panathenaic amphora which dates to somewhere in the first half of the second century, probably in the earlier part.52 By the middle of the century, however, the treasurer’s name had ceased to be included on the jars, and it was replaced with the name of the agonothetes.53 This shift in the design of the amphorae suggests that the duties of these two officials probably also changed at this time, and the office of the treasurer may even have ceased to exist; certainly it is not attested after the first part of the century. That the Theseia had its own agonothetes by 161/0 suggests that changes were being made in the ways in which the city financed and organised various of her festivals and 50 52 53

Compare Kritzas 2015: 141. 51 IG II2 968.41 7. Agora Excavations, Athens, P 8522: above note 45. Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 6103: Tsouklidou 2003: 387 8, 393 5, pl. 84. This amphora is the earliest example of this practice, which seems to have been standard in the second half of the century; cf. e.g. G. R. Edwards 1957: 331 2; Tsouklidou 2001: 40.

375

376

Appendix 6

not just the celebration for Athena.54 By 108/7, the agonothetes of the Panathenaia had gained responsibilities at the annual festival, a modification probably connected with the institution of the annual peplos for the goddess late in the second century.55 At this time, the athlothetai are also attested as active in the Little Panathenaia, a development which also seems to be linked to the addition of the annual robe.56 Changes in the ways in which the celebration was managed, consequently, are common in both the third and the second centuries, and they must reflect a complex set of factors including additions and subtractions to other elements in the festivities, the need to ensure adequate funding and the city’s larger economic situation. In turn, these developments affected further aspects of the occasion and the duties of different officials. The focus seems to have been especially concentrated on ensuring a proper level of funding, so that the celebration could be held in the most suitable way possible and the favour of the goddess towards the city could be assured. 54

55

Theseia: above note 10. Presumably this position was introduced when the festivities for Theseus became penteteric, probably in 165/4; above Chapter 8 note 37. SEG LIII 143.a6, b22 3; on the annual peplos, see above Chapter 3. 56 SEG LIII 143.a2.

Appendix 7

Tiberius Claudius Novius and the Great Panathenaia Sebasta

In either ad 47/8 or ad 51/2, the council of the Areiopagos, the boule of six hundred and the demos honoured Tiberius Claudius Novius of the deme Oion with a statue, as we know from its extant base.1 In the usual fashion of the time, the inscription on the base listed the honorand’s offices: hoplite general for the fourth time, priest of Delian Apollo for life, agonothetes of the Great Panathenaia Sebasta and of the Kaisarea Sebasta (ἀγωνοθέ|την τῶν μεγάλων Παναθηναίων |Σεβαστῶν καὶ Καισαρήων Σε|βαστῶν) and high priest of Antonia Augusta. Novius is well known as one of the most prominent citizens of Claudian and Neronian Athens, and he was very active on behalf of this city.2 For us, his base is of particular importance because it provides us with our only extant reference to the Great Panathenaia Sebasta.3 The addition of the term Sebasta to the festival’s title indicates that the imperial cult was now included as part of the celebration for Athena.4 The absence of further evidence has led to scholarly disagreement over the longevity of this aspect of the festivities for the goddess.5 Re-examining our evidence for the Great Panathenaia shows that the imperial cult can never have been a central part of the proceedings and must only have been included for a relatively short period of time in the middle of the first century ad. That the addition of the imperial cult was a new or relatively new addition to the Panathenaia at the time of Novius’ agonothesia is suggested 1

2 3

4 5

IG II2 3535; for the date, see: Lewis 1955: 10; Follet 1976: 161; Byrne 2003: 171; cf. Geagan 1979: 284; Spawforth 1997: 190. Geagan 1979; Byrne 2003: 170 3. The fragmentary inscription SEG XLVII 226 I.Eleusis 356 has been restored to provide another reference in lines 4 7: καὶ ἀγ̣ω[νοθέτην τῶν Με]|γάλων [Καισαρήων Σεβα]|στῶν [καὶ Παναθηναίων] |Σεβα[στῶν]; cf. SEG LVIII 191. Since the restoration of the second festival is uncertain, this text does not provide a further attestation for the Great Panathenaia Sebasta. The absence of the honorand’s name makes it difficult to be certain that the base honoured Novius; contra: Clinton 2008: 324 5; cf. Lozano 2007: 856. E.g. Spawforth 1997: 190; Camia 2011: 94. For different recent views, see Camia 2011: 94, 106 11 with further references; Kantiréa 2007: 177; Lozano 2002: 33 5, 66 71; Spawforth 1997: 190 with note 50.

377

378

Appendix 7

by our other evidence for the festival in the early imperial period. Three statue bases dating to the reign of Augustus and honouring victorious athletes all describe the festival simply as the Panathenaia or as the Great Panathenaia, and it is never connected with the term Sebasta.6 On one of these bases, the celebration is specified as the ‘Great Panathenaia at Athens’, a fullness of description which is used to describe all the games mentioned in this text. This base makes it clear that the imperial cult was not connected with Athena’s festivities at this time. Although a second base from Kos describes the general circumstances of the enkomia which the now anonymous victor gave, these competitions took place ‘[in] the most famous cities in Asia’.7 Consequently, the references to Augustus, Tiberius and Germanicus which are included in this description cannot be used as evidence the imperial cult was included in the Great Panathenaia.8 Further testimonia demonstrate that, by the last twenty years of the first century ad, the imperial cult was no longer associated with the festivities for Athena. A statue base for Titus Flavius Metrobios of Iasos, who won the dolichos in the Olympic games in ad 89, reports that he also won ‘in Athens at the Eleusinia and the Panathenaia’.9 Similarly, Claudius Demostratos is described on a monument honouring his granddaughter as the agonothetes of the Panathenaia, an office which he held at some time in the last twenty years of the century and perhaps in the 80s.10 In both instances, the celebration is not described at the Panathenaia Sebasta; the absence of this usage ought to indicate that the imperial cult was no longer part of the occasion by this time. In the second century ad, none of the monuments for victors nor the inscriptions referring to agonothetai ever use the term Panathenaia Sebasta. Our evidence, accordingly, suggests that the imperial cult was only connected with the Great Panathenaia for a short period of time in the middle of the first century ad. In this way, the celebration conforms to Simon Price’s observation that, for some festivals, the connections with the imperial cult are ‘very transient and do not necessarily entail a close relationship between the emperor and the traditional cult’.11 In the case of the Great Panathenaia, it is possible that the associations were particularly limited, because a statue base, which was set up for Novius on Delos by 6

7 8 9 10

Panathenaia: IG XII.4 939.13; SEG LIX 411 col. 1.10; Great Panathenaia at Athens: Iscr. Cos EV 218B.1 3 IG XII.4 938.24 6. IG XII.4 939.4 12. Camia 2011: 110; cf. Spawforth 1997: 198 note 50; contra: Lozano 2002: 34 5. I.Iasos 108.5. For the date of his Olympic victory, see I.Iasos 107. IG II2 4071.22 5; Byrne 2003: 142 3; Follet 1976: 330, 334. 11 Price 1984: 103 4.

Ti. Claudius Novius and the Great Panathenaia Sebasta

apparently the demos of the Athenians and the inhabitants of the island, describes him as agonothetes of the Great Panathenaia, not of the Great Panathenaia Sebasta.12 If he was agonothetes of Athena’s celebration on only one occasion, as has been suggested, then the links between the festivities and the rituals for the emperor must have been especially fleeting.13 Alternatively, Novius may have been agonothetes of the Great Panathenaia on two separate occasions, the earlier of which ought to be commemorated by the Delian base.14 Subsequently, the imperial cult will have been added to Athena’s celebration and the name of the occasion changed to the Great Panathenaia Sebasta. Under either of these scenarios, it is also possible that Novius, who was active in various aspects of the imperial cult, was responsible for the changes to the goddess’ festivities.15 How exactly the cult manifested itself is difficult to say from the state of our evidence. Most likely, it included additional rituals and perhaps even sacrifices for the emperor. Evidently, these additions did not last very long, and by the late first century ad the imperial cult was certainly no longer associated with the Great Panathenaia. 12 13

14 15

I.Delos 1628. One occasion: Geagan 1979: 284; Camia 2011: 107; cf. Byrne 2003: 171. Since the text is fragmentary, we do not know with which of Novius’ hoplite generalships this agonothesia was synchronised. Camia suggests that the imperial cult was only added to the Panathenaia for the year of Novius’ agonothesia; Camia 2011: 107 8. Compare Follet 1976: 161; Byrne 2003: 171. Spawforth 1997: 191. For Novius and the imperial cult more generally, see Spawforth 1997: 188 91; Kantiréa 2007: 175 8.

379

Appendix 8

The Text of Agora XVIII C197

In 1954, the excavators at the Athenian Agora located a list of victors (Agora Excavations, Athens, I 6701) among the marbles recovered from demolishing the nineteenth-century additions to the west end of the Church of the Holy Apostles.1 Although it was published by Benjamin Meritt in 1963, scholars have only recently focused on this text, which both Meritt and Stephen Tracy rightly identified as a list of victors from the Great Panathenaia in the early second century bc.2 The fragmentary block on which the text was inscribed is now very battered, and its current state reflects multiple phases.3 At least one phase led to the effacement of much of the inscribed surface, and the scanty remains of the extant text are now extremely difficult to read. As presented by Donald Geagan and Tracy, the list is unusual in that the athletic events for men seem to begin with the stadion and not the dolichos, as the other contemporary victors’ lists do. Re-examination of this difficult inscription in Athens has led to modifications of the text, which turns out not to be an anomaly among the early second-century lists, and to further consideration of the history of the stone. We shall also see that Tracy correctly associated our block with IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114 and SEG XLI 115, and the extant text must date to 190 bc, as he suggested.

The Inscription and Its Text Preserved are the battered remains of the inscribed face, the left side and the bottom of the block (Figs. A8.1–3). It is broken on the right side and at the top of the block; the back has been roughly worked with a large point, and it need not represent the original back of the block. On the inscribed surface, the left two-thirds have been roughly worked down, so that no inscribed text is now preserved in this part of the block, and the surface is about 0.005–0.007 m lower than the preserved inscribed surface on the 1

2

380

3

Geagan 2011: 114; cf. Meritt 1963: 46 no. 65. Note that the grid number is correctly O 15 16, as given by Geagan, and not D 15 16, as specified by Meritt. Meritt 1963: 46 no. 65; Tracy 2015c: 714 15. The text was also recently re edited by Geagan, who included it in Agora XVIII. Meritt 1963: pl. 14; Tracy 2015c: 715, fig. 1.

The Text of Agora XVIII C197

381

Figure A8.1 Agora XVIII C197: list of victors in the Panathenaia, 194 and 190 bc: inscribed face (Agora Excavations, Athens, I 6701). The left two thirds of the block have been roughly worked down, a process which obliterated the list of 194 bc.

right side of the block (Fig. A8.1). On this part of the block, the surface is very battered and damaged, with abrasions and other wear; the text here is extremely difficult to read. The left side and the bottom of the block form a right angle; on the bottom of the stone, there is a dowel cutting, which we shall discuss further below. No original inscribed surface is preserved adjacent to the bottom or the left side; since these junctions are very battered, it is difficult to be sure if the left side and/or the bottom ever had anathyrosis (Figs. A8.2–3).4 All the extant surfaces of the block have traces of white mortar, presumably from the stone’s last reuse as building material in the west extension of the Church of the Holy Apostles. Height: 0.55 m; width: 0.64 m; thickness: 0.111 m; letter height: 0.005–0.007 m (omikron: 0.003–0.004 m) 4

Definition of anathyrosis: Shear 2011: 7 note 67.

382

Appendix 8

column 1

column 2

text now destroyed

[στάδιον?] 1

[

]ου[ ] [δίαυλον?]

5

10

[ ]α̣νου[ ] [πάλην? ]οσοτ[ ] [πηγμήν] [ ]ο[υ] Σμυρ[ναῖος] [παγκ]ρά[τ]ιο[ν] [ Διο]ν̣υσοδώρου Πριηνε[ύς] [ἀγενείο]υ̣ς στάδι̣ ον vacat [ ]ρ̣[ο]υ̣ Ἰ̣ α̣σεύς vacat [πένταθλ]ον vacat [ ]ου Κυζικην[ός] [πάλην]

Figure A8.2 Agora XVIII C197: list of victors in the Panathenaia, 194 and 190 bc: left side of the block (Agora Excavations, Athens, I 6701).

Figure A8.3 Agora XVIII C197: list of victors in the Panathenaia, 194 and 190 bc: bottom of the block with a dowel hole (Agora Excavations, Athens, I 6701).

The Text of Agora XVIII C197

Epigraphical Commentary Note that Stephen Tracy read nothing above line 6. I have retained Geagan’s line numbers for convenience. line 1: line 3: line 4: line 6: line 7: line 8: line 9:

line 10:

line 11: line 12:

Geagan: [- - - - - - - - - - -]ου; Tracy read no letters in this line. Only the bottom of the left diagonal of the alpha is visible; Geagan: [- - - - - - -]ανου; Tracy read no letters in this line. Geagan: [- - - - - -]οσ[ο]τ[- - -]; Tracy read no letters in this line. Tracy: [- - - - - -]Υ Σ̣μυρ̣[ναῖος]; Geagan: [- - - -]υ[. . . . . . ο]υ Σ̣μυρ̣[ναῖος]. Tracy: [παγ]κράτιον vacat; Geagan: [παγκ]ράτιον vacat. Of the dotted nu, only the right vertical is visible; Tracy and Geagan: [- - - - - Διο]νυσοδώρου. The dotted upsilon is represented by the bottom of the central vertical; the upper part of the dotted iota is preserved; Tracy and Geagan: ἄ[ν]δ̣[ρ]α̣ς. Of the dotted rho, part of the loop is visible; the vertical of the dotted upsilon is preserved; the lower part of the dotted iota is present; the dotted alpha is visible as the two diagonals of a triangular letter, but not the apex; Tracy: [- - - - - -]ος [Ἰ]α̣σε̣ ύς vvv ; Geagan: [- - - - - -]ρου̣ Ἰασεύς vvv. Tracy: [δίαυλ]ον? vacat; Geagan: [- - - -]ον vacat. Tracy: [- - - - - - -]του.

Discussion My text is based on autopsy of the stone at the Agora Excavations in Athens and their very good file photograph, which is available online, a well as the squeezes in the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. At autopsy, it is clear that the letters are quite regularly inscribed, but rather widely spaced, generally at intervals of c. 0.005 m. This regular spacing serves as a control against mistaking scratches and pitting as letters on such a damaged inscribed surface. Despite my best efforts, I have not been able to read any form of ἄ[ν]δ̣[ρ]α̣ς in line 9, as Tracy and Geagan did. On the extant prize lists which belong to this series, the order of the athletic events is consistent: in the division for beardless youths, the last contest is the

383

384

Appendix 8

pankration, and it is then followed by the men’s dolichos, not the stadion.5 The boys’ pankration, however, is followed by the youths’ stadion. In addition, as now preserved, the extant text in line 9 extends quite far to the right, more so than the partially preserved line 7, which listed the pankration, and much more so than lines 2 and 5, which originally also must have contained the names of events, but are no longer preserved. This spacing is more consistent with the longer word ἀγενείους than the shorter word ἄνδρας. This evidence, together with the extant letter traces described above, suggest that line 9 is correctly to be restored as [ἀγενείο]υ̣ς στάδι̣ ον. While the layout for most of the preserved text indicates that we have an event in one line followed by the name of the successful contestant in the next, lines 3–4 are anomalous, because they seem to have contained long lines of text appropriate for the listing of victors, not events. In this series of inscriptions, this pattern happens either when the event and the contestant’s name have been compressed into one line or when the victor’s name is too long for one line, as sometimes happens with royal victors.6 Since this section records successful competitors in athletic events, we almost certainly have the former situation. Consequently, the beginning of line 4 ought to be restored with an event, but one which is quite short in length. Since names of victors are normally in the nominative in these lists, lines 1 and 3, which contained such names, cannot have ended -ου, and more text must originally have been inscribed to the right of the extant letters. Irrespective of how we interpret and restore line 9, lines 4, 5 and 7 must be restored with the events πάλην, πηγμήν and παγκράτιον, the order found in both the boys’ and the youths’ divisions.7 The contest in line 2 ought to have been fairly short in length, hence the absence of any preserved traces. For boys, the competition preceding wrestling is the diaulos, which will fit the stone, but, for youths, it is the pentathlon, a longer word which does not fit the preserved remains so well. In line 11, the event must be rather long in length, because its last two letters are preserved. This situation is appropriate for the pentathlon, the next event for youths. In the men’s division, the contest after the stadion is normally the diaulos; alternatively, as Tracy suggests, the order of the men’s stadion and the dolichos 5

6

7

The prize lists in this series include not only this list, but also IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114 and SEG XLI 115; Tracy 2015c: 717 20; Tracy and Habicht 1991: 219 21. Tracy also notes that the order on this list does not conform to that of the others in the series, but he does not explore the ramifications; Tracy 2015c: 714; for the order, see helpfully Tracy and Habicht 1991: 196 7. For the former, see SEG XLI 115 col. I.9, 13, 25 6, 29, 32 4; for the latter, see IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.41 2; SEG XLI 115 col. III.32 3. Tracy and Habicht 1991: 197.

The Text of Agora XVIII C197

may have been reversed. Both of these competitions are designated by relatively short words which are not consistent with the preserved traces. As this discussion has brought out, the evidence for the other events in this section of the list is consistent with the restoration of [ἀγενείο]υ̣ς στάδι̣ ον in line 9, but not with the men’s stadion. Consequently, the events in lines 11–15 recorded victors in the youths’ division, while the section above line 9 concerned the competitions for boys. Since the victors’ lists for probably 198 and for 182 record the athletic games, the correct restoration of the list from the Agora does not change our understanding of the development of the competitions in the first two decades of the second century. It does, however, affect how much space was likely to have been inscribed above the preserved text and what this section may have concerned.

The History of the Block As now preserved, the block on which our text is inscribed is very battered, and it clearly has had a long and eventful life (Fig. A8.1). Explicating this history also helps us to understand the appearance of the stone in its original phase and its relationship to the other lists in this series. In its first phase, the block was used to inscribe at least two lists of victors at the Panathenaia, the extant list (column 2) and the now effaced list to the left (column 1). Tracy has emphasised the similarities between this stone and the blocks preserving IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114 and SEG XLI 115.8 As he has correctly concluded, the list from the Agora must be part of this series. This association not only fits the unusual dimensions of the block, which are not consistent with an ordinary stele, but it also helps to explain certain features as they are now preserved. Since the left side of the block is now very battered, it is hard to be sure if it originally had anathyrosis (Fig. A8.2). It does have a tendency to slope outward towards the inscribed surface, a situation consistent with a now battered edge which originally had anathyrosis.9 Since IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114 also has anathyrosis on its left side, we would expect our stone also originally to have had this treatment.10 As we noted earlier, the left side and the bottom of the block now form a right angle, and they have both been worked with the same small point (Figs. A8.2–3);11 the workmanship is both finer and better than the working down of the inscribed surface (Fig. 8 10 11

9 Above note 5. Contra: Kevin Daly as reported by Tracy 2015c: 717 note 9. Anathyrosis on IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114: Tracy and Habicht 1991: 220; cf. Tracy 2015c: 717. On the working of the side and bottom, cf. Tracy 2015c: 717.

385

386

Appendix 8

A8.1). The left side and bottom of the stone must belong to the original phase of the block, when it was inscribed with the list of victors and built into the structure with the other lists of the series. The bottom of the inscription preserves the cutting for a dowel (Fig. A8.3). This cutting is 0.023 m in length and its left edge is located 0.330 m from the left edge of the bottom of the block. Since the bottom is 0.462 m long, the dowel is obviously not centred on the bottom as now preserved. When both columns were inscribed, however, it would have been in the correct position, which corresponds to the space between the two columns, because dowels are normally in the middle of their blocks or, if multiple dowels are necessary, they are evenly spaced in relation to the block. Since the other two blocks from this series seem to have carried three columns of text rather than two, it is likely that our block did as well. We must, therefore, restore a second dowel in a location corresponding to the space between the second and third columns. This restoration is consistent with SEG XLI 115, the bottom of which has three dowel cuttings.12 The extant dowel hole must, therefore, be original and not later, as it was described by Tracy.13 Since dowel cuttings belong with cut-stone masonry and not with masonry held in place by mortar, it is extremely difficult to construct a scenario which would include the cutting of a dowel hole in the second phase. The block would have been used architecturally, but the original inscription was not chiselled off. If the current back of the block is original, then it is not consistent with the back of a normal architectural block; this block, consequently, could only be reused in a very limited number of situations. Such a scenario is very unlikely. Rather, the left side, the bottom and the extant dowel cutting must all belong to the original phase of the block, when it was used in the same structure which included the blocks with the inscriptions IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114 and SEG XLI 115. The dowel hole indicates that our block stood on top of another block: it must be one of the putative upper blocks which, on the basis of the text of SEG XLI 115, Tracy and Habicht postulated once had to have existed.14 This restoration has further implications for understanding how the text of the inscription was originally inscribed. It must not only have continued below the restored line 13, but it must also have extended on to the face of the lower block on top of which our stone stood.15 Including line 13, there is room 12 14

15

Presumably they are evenly spaced; Tracy and Habicht 1991: 190. 13 Tracy 2015c: 716. Tracy and Habicht 1991: 191 2. Tracy’s drawing of all three blocks thus needs to be amended to indicate their correct vertical relationship; Tracy 2015c: 719 fig. 8. For this reason, our block does not include the recessed band which Tracy and Habicht observed at the bottom of SEG XLI 115; Tracy and Habicht 1991: 190, 192.

The Text of Agora XVIII C197

here for another ten lines.16 If the text was regularly spaced, with one event and one victor’s name per line, this text would end with the name of the victor in the men’s stadion; the first line on the lower block would have been the entry for the men’s diaulos. After the men’s events, the text ought to have included the individual tribal hippic contests and then the hippic contests open to all.17 The list also continued above the extant line 1. From the top of this line to the point at which the inscribed surface breaks off is 0.206 m; thus, above line 1, there is room for another seventeen lines, and the text need not have ended at the point where the inscribed surface is now broken off. The lowest three lines will have been occupied by the entries for the boys’ dolichos and the victor’s name, and then the heading for the boys’ stadion in the line immediately above line 1. The fourteen lines above this section ought to have been occupied by the entries for the victors in the musical games. This inscription, consequently, provides us with our best evidence that the successful contestants in the musical events continued to be included on the victors’ lists in the first and second quarters of the second century bc. In its first phase, accordingly, our block stood in the same structure or monument as IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114 and SEG XLI 115. Since the blocks vary in thickness and their backs were not smoothly finished, they cannot have been building blocks; most likely they belonged to a large monument. Since the lists in question were inscribed by (at least) three different cutters, they must not all have been cut at the same time.18 Once they were added to the structure, it presumably stood in place for quite some time. Eventually, however, it was taken apart and the block SEG XLI 115 became available for reuse in the Late Roman Fortification Wall, which was constructed in the late third century ad.19 This section of the wall contains two other uninscribed blocks which are also part of this series.20 It seems most likely that the structure was damaged during the Herulian invasion in ad 267, and thus its blocks became available for reuse.21

16

17 18 19 20

21

The vertical spacing may be estimated based on the following measurements: from the top of line 8 to the bottom of line 12 0.059 m; from the top of line 6 to the bottom of line 12 0.085 m. The space from the bottom of line 12 to the bottom of the block is 0.120 m, which, therefore, allows space for ten lines of text. For this pattern, cf. IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.1 56. Tracy 2015c: 716, 719 fig. 8; Tracy and Habicht 1991: 194, 220 with note 138 and fig. 1. Above Chapter 1 note 24. When I visited this section of the wall in the late summer of 1999, they were in situ on either side of SEG XLI 115. Dimensions: block on the right or north side: height: 0.50 m; width: 0.872 m; thickness: c. 0.197 m; block on the left or south side: height: 0.785 m; width: 0.89 m; thickness: c. 0.175 m. Herulian invasion: above Chapter 5 note 132.

387

388

Appendix 8

Subsequently, someone apparently decided to turn the block with the Agora list into a threshold. As part of this process, the left two-thirds of the inscribed surface began to be worked down. The work was not completed, and the project was abandoned. Since the other blocks in the series have of a thickness ranging from 0.15 to c. 0.197 m, they were not obvious blocks to reuse as a threshold;22 a normal stele was a much better candidate. Perhaps the back of our stone was also cut down at this time, hence its narrower thickness of 0.111 m and the rough work now visible on the back. After this project was abandoned, our block seems to have kicked around; the current state of the inscribed surface suggests that it was left outside with this face up for a long time, hence the very worn and damaged appearance of this side. At some point, the upper section of the block was destroyed, and eventually it was built into one of the two nineteenth-century extensions on the west side of the Church of the Holy Apostles in the Agora.23 In this way, the entire block gained the traces of white mortar which are now clearly visible. When these extensions were demolished as part of the project to restore the church, the battered and broken block ended up in the marble pile where it was identified in 1954.

The Date of the Victors’ List Finally, we must consider the date of the list preserved on the block. Since it was cut by a different cutter than IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114 and SEG XLI 115, our text cannot have been part of either of those five lists. It must, however, be close in date to them, because it is part of the same series. In contrast, the earlier lists on IG II2 2313 are not connected with our structure; they ought to predate the text from the Agora and most probably belong in the years between 210 or 206 and 198 bc.24 Tracy has identified the extant inscription on our block as the work of the Cutter of IG II2 912, who was active between 226/5 and about 190.25 Since our block most probably had three columns of text, as we saw above, and the years between 182 and 162 are occupied by the lists of IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114 and SEG XLI 115, our text most probably dates to 194 and 186: the now effaced column 1 should belong in 194; the extant column 2 in 190; and the now 22 23

24

Tracy 2015c: 717 with note 20 above. It is not clear to me to which of the church’s two nineteenth century phases, periods III and IV, we must connect the reuse of our block; Frantz 1971: 35 9, pls. 28, 38 9. Above Chapter 5 notes 7, 48, 84. 25 Tracy 2015c: 716.

The Text of Agora XVIII C197

destroyed third column in 186.26 Although the six extant texts from this structure were organised quite differently from the lists belonging to the years 210 or 206 and 198, the changes most likely reflect differences in commemoration and perhaps record-keeping. The games themselves do not seem to have changed radically in the 190s and 180s bc. 26

So also Tracy 2015c: 719 with fig. 8.

389

Tables

Table 3.1 Distribution of meat from the sacrifices at the Little Panathenaia Set 1: Sacrifices to Athena Hygieia and in the ar[chaios neos] Recipient

Amount

IG II3.1 447

[prytan]eis1 nine archons treasurers of the goddess hier[opoioi] generals and taxiarchoi Athenians in procession and [kanephoroi] Athenians

5 portions [3] portions2 1 portion [1] portion [3] portions3 accustomed amount the rest of the meat

line 37 lines 37 line 38 lines 38 lines 39 lines 40 lines 41

8 9 40 1 2

Set 2: Sacrifices on the Great Altar and to Nike Recipient

Amount

IG II3.1 447

Athenians by deme

proportionally by number of members in procession

lines 50 3

1 2

3

The fifty members of the tribe presiding over the council. Three, five or nine portions are all epigraphically possible. Most likely they received less than the fifty prytaneis and more than the ten treasurers; cf. Brulé 1996: 47 note 41. Three, five or nine portions are all epigraphically possible. Most likely they received less than the fifty prytaneis and more than the ten treasurers.

Table 4.1 Officials in the procession of the Great Panathenaia Position

Official or person

marshal

Hippias

390

Role

Date of occasion

Testimonia

Relationship to events described

marshalled 514 bc participants and sent them off

Thucydides 6.57.1; cf. Thucydides 1.20.2

received procession

Aristotle, Athenaion retrospective Politeia 18.3

514 bc

retrospective

Tables

391

Table 4.1 (cont.) Official or person

Role

Date of occasion

tyrant’s brother

Hipparchos

sent procession

514 bc

Aristotle, Athenaion retrospective Politeia 18.3

marshal

Hipparchos

marshalled procession

514 bc

Thucydides 1.20.2

retrospective

marshals

demarchoi

marshalled procession

after Kleisthenic reforms

scholia of the Aldine edition of Aristophanes, Clouds 371

retrospective2

managers

athlothetai

managed procession

late 330s bc

Aristotle, Athenaion contemporary Politeia 60.13

Position

1 2

3

Relationship to events described

Testimonia

Compare Suda s.v. δήμαρχοι. The date of this passage’s composition is not obvious, but the use of the imperfect tense suggests a Roman imperial date at the earliest. Compare IG II2 784.7 11 = IG II3.1 1022.7 11.

Table 4.2 Athenian military in the procession of the Great Panathenaia Participants

Date of occasion

Testimonia

Relationship to events described

hoplites in arms

514 bc

Thucydides 6.56.2, 58.1

retrospective

unarmed hoplites

514 bc

Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia 18.4 retrospective

hoplites in arms

after 514 bc; established by demos

Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia 18.4 contemporary?

ephebes

just before or about 330 324 bc 1

Deinarchos 16 fr. 5; quoted by Harpokration, Suda, Photios, Lexikon s.v. σκαφηφόροι

contemporary

ephebes

122 bc

IG II2 1006.14 15 = Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 26.14 152

contemporary; decree dates to 122/1 bc

ephebes

fifth century bc

Heliodoros, Aithiopika 1.10.1

retrospective3

1

2

3

This case against Agasikles is mentioned in the present tense in Hypereides, Euxenippos 3, a speech dating between 330 and 324 bc. This sacrifice to Athena Nike probably took place at the Panathenaia, but the festival is not mentioned in the text. The text dates to the Roman imperial period, to either the third or the fourth century ad; see E. Bowie 2008: 32 4.

392

Tables

Table 4.3 Bearers of ritual items in the procession of the Great Panathenaia Role

Status of participants

Date of occasion

Testimonia

Relationship to events described

kanephoroi

(of high rank) reign of Philochoros FGrHist 328 F8; Erichthonios quoted by Harpokration, Suda, Photios, Lexikon s.v. κανηφόροι

retrospective

kanephoros

daughter of citizen

514 bc

Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia 18.2

retrospective

kanephoros

daughter of citizen

142 bc

IG II2 968.52 3

contemporary; decree dates to 141/0 bc

kanephoros

[daughter of citizen]

soon after 138/7 bc

IG II2 3477.5 7 = Agora XVIII H333.8 10

contemporary; base dates soon after 138/7 bc 1

kanephoroi

inhabitants of astu

Lexeis Rhetorikai s.v. κανηφόροι (270, 32 Bekker); repeated by Photios, Lexikon s.v. κανηφόροι

retrospective

Xenophon, Symposium 4.17

not very long after events; text dates to early fourth century bc 2

thallophoroi

Etymologicum Magnum s.v. θαλλοφόρος3

retrospective4

thallophoroi

scholia on Aristophanes, Wasps 544b

retrospective5

Deinarchos 16 fr. 5; quoted by Harpokration, Suda, Photios, Lexikon s.v. σκαφηφόροι

contemporary

skaphephoroi metics

Photios, Lexikon s.v. σκάφας, with reference to Menander fr. 147 (PCG)

retrospective with reference to contemporary source

skaphephoroi metics

Hesychios s.v. σκαφηφόροι

retrospective

thallophoroi

skaphephoroi metics

1 2 3 4 5 6

422 bc

just before or about 330 324 bc 6

Tracy 1990: 179 80 with 141 2. On the date, see Bowen 1998: 7 9. Compare Hsch. s.v. θαλλοφόρος. The date of composition of this passage is not obvious, but note the use of the present tense. The date of composition of this passage is not obvious, but note the use of the imperfect tense. This case against Agasikles is mentioned in the presence tense in Hypereides, Euxenippos 3, a speech dating between 330 and 324 bc.

Tables

393

Table 4.4 Chremes’ procession in Ekklesiazousai and the Great Panathenaia Participants in Chremes’ procession1

Attested in Panathenaic procession

Sources of evidence: Literary

▲

sieve = kanephoros chytra = diphrophoros hydria = hydriaphoros kitharoidos (female) skaphephoros with tray and honeycombs olive branches = thallophoros two tripods lekythos little chytrai multitude 1

Visual

▲

▲ (male) ▲ (male) ▲ ▲

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲

Ar. Ekkl. 728 45.

Table 4.5 Colonists and allies in the procession of the Great Panathenaia Contingent Status

Date1

Testimonia

Item(s) conveyed

Brea

colony

440s or 430s bc?2

IG I3 46.15 16

cow and p[anoply]

all allies

allies [just like colon]i[sts]

425/4 bc

IG I3 71.55 8

co[w and panop]l[y]

allies

allies

after 425/4 bc?3

IG I3 34.41 3

cow and [panoply]

Paros

colony

372 bc

RO 29.2 6

cow and pano[ply]

4

Priene

(because of ancient 326 bc kinship and current friendship)

Kolophon

colony

307/6 bc

IG II2 456b.3 8 with a.7 and b.14

[cro]wn and panoply as aristeion

Priene

(friend[s and kinsmen] from ancient times)

c. 200 bc

IG II3.1 1239.10 13 = I.Priene 45.9 12 = I.Priene 2014 99.9 12

[

1 2 3 4 5

I.Priene 5.1 6 = I.Priene panoply (= aparchai?) 2014 5.1 6 and sacrifices

]5

Of the document, unless specified. See Chapter 4 note 60. See Rhodes 2008: 501, 503; Osborne and Rhodes 2017: 326 8. See Chapter 1 note 2. For the problems of restoring the item(s) brought, see the commentary on these lines in IG II3.1.

394

Tables

Table 4.6 Conveying the peplos in the procession of the Great Panathenaia Date of occasion

Relationship to events described

Testimonia

c. 400 bc?

Strattis fr. 31 (PCG); contemporary? quoted by Harpokration s.v. τοπεῖον and repeated by Photios, Lexikon, Suda, Etymologicum Magnum s.v. τοπεῖον

302 bc

Plutarch, Demetrios 12.3

Nautical terms

Vehicle described as ship

τοπείοις, ἱστίον, ἱστόν

retrospective

299/8 bc

IG II 657.14 16 = IG II .1 contemporary; decree 877.14 16 dates to 283/2 bc

κεραίας, ἱστοῦ

282 bc 1

SEG XXVIII 60.66 9 = IG II3.1 911.66 9

contemporary; decree dates to 270/69 bc

ὅπλων

142 bc

IG II2 968.48 9

contemporary; decree dates to 141/0 bc

ὅπλα στύπ[πινα]

mid first century bc?2

[Vergil], Ciris 21 35

contemporary?

velum3

ad 143

Philostratos, Vitae sophistarum 2.550

retrospective

▲

mid second century ad

Pausanias 1.29.1

contemporary

▲

allegedly fifth century bc

Heliodoros, Aithiopika 1.10.1

retrospective4

▲

mid third century ad

IG II2 3198.7 12 = IG II3.4 contemporary; 1398.7 12 inscription dates before c. ad 2705

ἀκρ[οστό]λιον

370s ad 6

Himerios, Oration 47.12 16 (Colonna)

contemporary

πλήρωμα, πρύμνης

late fourth century ad

IG II2 3818 = 13281

contemporary; base dates to late fourth or early fifth century ad 7

2

3

([σκά]φης)

▲ ▲

Tables

395

Table 4.6 (cont.) Date of occasion Roman imperial?

1 2 3 4

5

6

7 8 9 10

Vehicle described as ship

Relationship to events described

Nautical terms

contemporary?8

ἄρμενον

▲

scholia on Aelius retrospective9 Aristeides, Oration 1.404 (Lenz and Behr) = Dindorf III: 342 3 = Jebb 197, 8

ἱστίον

▲

Suda s.v. πέπλος

ἄρμενον

▲

Testimonia scholia on Aristophanes, Knights 566a (I); repeated by 566c

retrospective10

On the date, see Shear 2010. On the date of this passage, see Lyne 1978: 108 10; for the overall poem, see Lyne 1978: 48 56. On the meaning, see OLD s.v. velum 5. The text dates to the Roman imperial period, to either the third or the fourth century ad; see E. Bowie 2008: 32 4. The inscription must date before IG II2 3669 = 13262, which mentions Herennius Dexippos’ agonothesia and dates to c. ad 270 or a little later; Sironen 1994: 17 18. On the date, see Barnes 1987: 217 18; Penella 2007: 208 9; cf. Völker 2003: 48, 288 note 2; contra: Remijsen 2015a: 187. On the date, see Chapter 1 note 12. Note the use of the present tense. Note the use of the imperfect tense. Note the use of the imperfect tense. At this point, the Suda is either drawing directly on the scholia of Aristophanes’ Knights 566a (I) or on its sources.

Date

c. 550 bc

c. 560– 550 bc

c. 540 bc

c. 500 bc

end of sixth century bc

Vessel

Band cup, Stavros S. Niarchos Collection, A 031 (Fig. 4.5)

Dinos, National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 607, frag. e (Fig. 4.6)

Amphora, Staatliche Museen, Berlin, F 1686 (Fig. 4.7)

Lekythos, National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 2298 (Fig. 4.1)

National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1220 (Fig. 4.2)

ABL 216, 8

ABV 269, 4

ABV 107, 1

Reference

▲

1 bull

▲

1 bull, 1 sow, 1 ram

1 bull, 1 sow, 1 ram

1 bull

▲

▲

Sacrificial animals

not striding

(not preserved)

not striding

Goddess as on prize vases Kanephoros

Table 4.7 Sixth-century visual evidence for the procession at the Great Panathenaia

1 auletes

2 auletai, 2 kitharistai

2 auletai, 1 kitharistes

Musicians

▲ (male and female)

▲

(priestess holds branches)

▲

▲

Thallophoroi 1 with hoplites

Marshals

▲ (in arms)

Hoplites

▲

Cavalry

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

▲ (and other females)1

▲

▲

Kanephoroi

multiple cows; 4 sheep on north side2

1 bull

1 bull, 1 sow, 1 ram

1 bull, 1 sow, 1 ram

Sacrificial animals

▲3

▲ (male)4

multiple auletai and kitharistai5

1 auletes

2 auletai, 1 kitharistes

▲ (male and female)

▲

▲

▲

multiple6

1 with hoplites

▲7

▲ (in arms)

▲8

▲

Skaphephoroi Hydriaphoroi Musicians Thallophoroi Marshals Apobatai Hoplites Cavalry

E2–17, 50–1, 53–63. E8–9, 11, 57 and 61 are identified as adult women by their bound-up hair and headscarves; Harrison 1989: 53. The numeration follows that of I. Jenkins 1994. N1–8, 10–11; S122–48. N13–15; S120. N16–19. N20–6; S107–10. E1, 47–9, 52; N9, 12, 44–5, 48, 51, 58, 65–6, 90; S64, 67, 70, 73, 82, 85, 86, 88, 149; W1. N46–7, 49–50, 52–7, 59–64, 67–8, 70–1, 73–4; S62–3, 65–6, 68–9, 71–2, 74–81, 83–4, 87. N75–89, 91–135; S1–61; W2–30.

Parthenon frieze (Fig. 4.8)

National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1220 (Fig. 4.2)

Lekythos, National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 2298 (Fig. 4.1)

Dinos, National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 607, frag. e (Fig. 4.6)

Band cup, Stavros S. Niarchos Collection, A 031 (Fig. 4.5)

Depiction

Table 4.8 Archaic and classical visual evidence for the procession at the Great Panathenaia

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

▲ (male)4

▲ plus diphrophoros9

▲

▲ (female) 1 kitharoidos

multiple auletai and kitharistai5

▲3

▲ multiple (and other cows; 4 sheep females)1 on north side2 ▲

▲

Skaphephoroi Hydriaphoroi Musicians Thallophoroi 2 auletai, 1 kitharistes

Sacrificial animals

1 bull, 1 sow, 1 ram

▲

Kanephoroi

multiple6

1 with hoplites

Marshals

▲7

Apobatai

E2–17, 50–1, 53–63. E8–9, 11, 57 and 61 are identified as adult women by their bound-up hair and headscarves; Harrison 1989: 53. N1–8, 10–11; S122–48. N13–15; S120. N16–19. N20–6; S107–10. E1, 47–9, 52; N9, 12, 44–5, 48, 51, 58, 65–6, 90; S64, 67, 70, 73, 82, 85, 86, 88, 149; W1. N46–7, 49–50, 52–7, 59–64, 67–8, 70–1, 73–4; S62–3, 65–6, 68–9, 71–2, 74–81, 83–4, 87. N75–89, 91–135; S1–61; W2–30. The role of diphrophoros already existed in 414; Ar. Birds 1549–52.

c. 393 bc: Chremes’ procession

c. 450 bc: Parthenon frieze (Fig. 4.8)

c. 550 bc: band cup, Stavros S. Niarchos Collection, A 031 (Fig. 4.5)

Depiction

Table 4.9 The procession at the Great Panathenaia in the archaic and classical periods

▲ (in arms)

Hoplites

▲8

▲

Cavalry

Tables

399

Table 4.10 Sacrifices to Athena at the Great Panathenaia Group

Date of occasion

Testimonia

Relationship to events described

City of Athens

after 490 to c. 420 bc

Herodotos 6.111.2

contemporary

410 bc

IG I3 375.6 71

contemporary; accounts date to 410/9 bc

282 bc

IG II2 682.53 5 = IG II3.1 985.53 52

contemporary; decree dates to 259/8 bc 3

258 bc?4

IG II2 677.1 3 = IG II3.1 1034.1 3

contemporary; decree dates to 255/4 bc?

142 bc

IG II2 968.50 1

contemporary; decree dates to 141/0 bc 5

ad 54 68

Philostratos, Vita Apollonii 4.22.2

retrospective; work probably dates to ad 220s or 230s6

c. 460 bc

IG I3 244A.18 21

contemporary; law dates to c. 460 bc

430s or 420s bc 7

SEG L 55 right side 3 4

contemporary; law dates to 430s or 420s bc

c. 420 bc

IG I3 258.25 8

contemporary; documents date to c. 420 bc

tribes

before 347/6 bc

Demosthenes 21.156 with Patmian scholia on Demosthenes 20.21 (Sakkélion 147)

contemporary; speech dates to 347/6 bc

gene

362 bc and subsequently

RO 37.88 9

contemporary; decree dates to 363/2 bc

440s or 430s bc?

IG I3 46.15 16

contemporary; decree dates to 440s or 430s bc 8

370 bc and subsequently

RO 29.2 6

contemporary; decree dates to 372 bc

326 bc

I.Priene 5.10 15 = I.Priene 2014 5.10 15

contemporary; decree dates to 326 bc 9

c. 200 bc

IG II3.1 1239.10 13 = I.Priene 45.9 12 = I.Priene 2014 99.9 12

contemporary; decree dates to c. 200 bc

scholia vetera on Aristophanes, Clouds 386a

retrospective

scholia of Tzetzes on Aristophanes, Clouds 386

retrospective

scholia recentiora on Aristophanes, Clouds 386b

retrospective

Athenian subdivisions

Colonies

demes

400

Tables

Table 4.10 (cont.) Relationship to events described

Group

Date of occasion

Testimonia

Allies

422 bc and subsequently

IG I3 71.55 7

contemporary; decree dates to 425/4 bc

after 425/4 bc?

IG I3 34.41 3

contemporary; decree dates after 425/4 bc?10

soon after 229 bc

IG II3.1 1145 = Gonnoi II 109

contemporary; decrees dates soon after 229 bc

Other cities

1

2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Compare SEG LII 48 fr. 9B col. 1.11, dated to 410 404 bc and including earlier material. This entry is perhaps for the (Great) Panathenaia; Lambert 2002a: 388 9. Phaidros of Sphettos was the agonothetes who was primarily responsible for the Panathenaia; see Appendix 6. On the date, see Shear 2020: 276 with further references. See the discussion in Chapter 6 with note 67. See Chapter 1 note 1. Jones 2005: 3. See Chapter 3 note 32. See Chapter 4 note 60. See Chapter 1 note 2. See Rhodes 2008: 501, 503; Osborne and Rhodes 2017: 326 8.

Table 4.11 Crowns for Athena Date of Date of Dedicator dedication document1 Testimonia Athens

Description2

probably 402 bc

402/1 bc

SEG XXIII 82.29 30 (D. Harris 1995: no. [gol]d [crown], an V.417); cf. IG II2 1385.17 18 with the aristeio[n from the Panathenaia] restorations published by West and Woodward 1938: 87; 1388.29 30; 1393.14 15; 1400.32 3; 1407.27 with the restorations of Woodward 1940: 388 (D. Harris 1995: no. V.474)3

probably 398 bc

398/7 bc

IG II2 1388.66 7; 1400.58; 1407.27 8 with [go]ld cro[wn], an the restorations of Woodward 1940: 388 aristeion of the goddess (D. Harris 1995: no. V.475)

probably 394 bc

385/4 bc

IG II2 1407.28 with the restorations of Woodward 1940: 388 (D. Harris 1995: as no. V.389)

[gold] crow[n, an aristeion for the goddess]

probably 390 bc

385/4 bc

IG II2 1407.28 9 with the restorations of Woodward 1940: 388 (D. Harris 1995: as no. V.390)

[gold crown, an aristeion for the] goddess

Tables

401

Table 4.11 (cont.) Date of Date of Dedicator dedication document

Testimonia

Description

probably 386 bc

385/4 bc

IG II2 1407.29 with the restorations of Woodward 1940: 388 (D. Harris 1995: no. V.476)

[gold] crow[n, an aristeion for the goddess]

378 bc

371/0 bc

IG II2 1424a.34 6; 1425.29 31; 1436.11 12; 1438 + EM 12931.1 3, text as Schweigert 1938: no. 16 (D. Harris 1995: no. V.419)

g[o]ld [cr]own, an aristeion of the goddess [from] the Panathe[naia]

374 bc

371/0 bc

IG II2 1424a.64 6; 1425.64 6; 1438 + EM gold [c]rown, an 12931.3, text as Schweigert 1938: no. 16 aristeion of the (D. Harris 1995: no. V.477) goddess [from] the Panathenaia

370 bc

368/7 bc

IG II2 1425.121 2; 1436.13 14; 1438 + EM anoth[er cro]wn, an 12931.3 4, text as Schweigert 1938: no. 16 aristeion from the (D. Harris 1995: no. V.418) Panathenaia

Kolophon 306 bc

307/6 bc

IG II2 456b.3 8

1 2 3

[cro]wn . . . as aristeion

Of the earliest, if multiple documents are involved. Taken from the first mention, if multiple entries exist. These references most probably all refer to the same item despite the way in which the first text has been restored.

Table 5.1 Visual evidence for the musical games in the archaic period Inventory number

Event

Date

Auloidos

c. 550 540 British Museum, bc London, B 141 c. 540 bc

Appearance of contestants

References

men

Shapiro 1992: 62 fig. 40; Kotsidu 1991: 294 no. P1; Bentz 2001: 189 no. 236

Metropolitan Museum small, beardless of Art, New York, male 1989.281.89

boys?

Shapiro 1992: 62 3; Neils 1992c: 155, no. 18; Bentz 2001: 190 1 no. 261

Akademisches Kunstmuseum, Bonn, 43

small, beardless male

boys?

Kotsidu 1991: 294, no. P3; Greifenhagen 1935: cols. 453 4, fig. 31; Bentz 2001: 185 no. 164

small boy

boys

ABV 396, 12; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 62; Kotsidu 1991: 294 no. P9; Bentz 2001: 183 no. 122

c. 500 480 National Museum, bc Athens, Akropolis 1060

small, bearded male

Class of event

402

Tables

Table 5.1 (cont.) Inventory number

Appearance of contestants

Class of event

Event

Date

Auletes

c. 540 bc

Archer M. Huntington small, beardless Art Gallery, University male of Texas at Austin, 1980.32

single Shapiro 1992: 62, 64; class? Neils 1992c: 155, no. 17; Kotsidu 1991: 294 no. P4; Bentz 2001: 184 no. 145

c. 500 bc

City Art Gallery, Manchester, III H 52

beardless male

single Para. 151, 3; Kotsidu class? 1991: 294 no. P12; Shapiro 1993a: 26 fig. 7; Bentz 2001: 189 no. 246

c. 500 480 Hermitage Museum, bc St Petersburg, P 1911.12

beardless male

single ABV 396, 10; Para. 173; class? Pharmakowski 1912: col. 340, fig. 24; Kotsidu 1991: 294 no. P7; Bentz 2001: 194 no. 305

Auloidos or 500 480 auletes bc

Kitharistes

National Museum, lower part of Athens, Akropolis 947 male in white tunic

References

ABV 396, 9; Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 61; Kotsidu 1991: 294 no. P8; Bentz 2001: 179 no. 44

c. 550 540 British Museum, bc London, B 139

beardless male

men

ABV 139, 12; Shapiro 1992: 66 fig. 43; Kotsidu 1991: 294 no. P2; Bentz 2001: 189 no. 234

c. 530 bc

small, beardless boy

boys

Kotsidu 1991: 294 no. P5, pl. 8; Bentz 2001: 192 no. 285

bearded male

men

Shapiro 1992: 67 fig. 46; Kotsidu 1991: 294 no. P16; Bentz 2001: 184 no. 147

beardless male

men

Kotsidu 1991: 294 no. P14, pl. 12; Bentz 2001: 191 2 no. 276

beardless male

single Kotsidu 1991: 294 no. class? P13, pls. 10 11; Bentz 2001: 185 no. 162

Museo Nazionale, Reggio di Calabria, 4224

c. 500 480 Walters Art Gallery, bc Baltimore, 48.2107

Musée du Louvre, Paris, Elé.84

Kitharoidos c. 500 480 Museo Civico bc Archeologico, Bologna, Pell. Nr. 14

Tables

403

Table 5.1 (cont.) Inventory number

Appearance of contestants

Class of event

Event

Date

Rhapsode

c. 540 bc

National Museums bearded male and Galleries on Merseyside, Liverpool, 56.19.18

single Shapiro 1993b: 98 102, class figs. 26 7; Shapiro 1992: 75, fig. 51; Bentz 2001: 188 no. 225

c. 520 bc

Stadtmuseum, Oldenburg, XII/8250/2

single Shapiro 1993b: 98, 100 fig. class 25; Shapiro 1992: 74, fig. 50; Kotsidu 1991: 294 no. P6; Bentz 2001: 191 no. 266

bearded male

References

Kitharistes

Exekestides

446–414 bc

statue base

prize list prize list

SEG LIII 192.17–21 SEG LIII 192.28–304

380s bc

prize amphora

Regional Archaeological Museum, Plovdiv, RF pelike no inventory number

IG II 3779 = IG II .4 594 with Pausanias 1.37.2

prize list

Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, 17794

Alkimachos

Nikokles, son of Aristokles3

3

Class of event

boys

men

men

men

single class

inventories single class

RF bell krater

comedy; scholia

c. 430–420 bc

c. 440 bc

c. 250 bc

2

SEG LIII 192.6–13

SEG XXIII 82.30–1; D. Harris 1995: no. V.416; in later lists: IG II2 1385.18–20; 1388.36–7; 1393.19–20; 1389.1; 1400.17; 1407.33–4

402 bc

380s bc

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 25.78.662

Aristophanes, Birds 11; scholia on Aristophanes, Birds 11a

c. 420 bc

tie: no victor

Phrynis of Mytilene

446 bc 1

Kitharoidos

Type of evidence

scholia vetera on Aristophanes, Clouds 971a; scholia quoted by Suda s.v. Φρῦνις

Name of victor Reference or inventory number

Date

Event

Table 5.2 The musical games after 446 bc

Bentz 1998: 5.179

ARV2 1044, 9; Smith 2011: fig. 8.8; Kotsidu 1991: 309 no. V81

ARV2 1172, 8, 1685; Para. 459; Addenda2 339; Lissarrague 1990: pl. 8; Neils 2001: 212 fig. 148

References for vases

Ariston

c. 250 bc 8

380s bc

Auloidos or auletes

Rhapsode 9

I.Delos 2552.20–2 IvO 237.1–4

first century bc [-]obios

before ad 137

Herald

SEG LIII 192.31–311

380s bc

Lykourgos, Leokrates 102

330 bc

Synauletai10

[Plato], Hipparchos 228b4–c3

Plato, Ion 530a1–b4

SEG LIII 192.2–5

350–325 bc

P. Aelius Artemas of Laodikea

honorary monument

prize list

prize amphora

prize list

prize list

single class

single class

single class

men

boys

men

statue base single class

victory single class monument

prize list

court speech

dialogue

dialogue

prize list

Iscr. Cos EV 234.1, 5, 9–10 = IG XII.4 521.1, statue base 5, 9–10

SEG XXIX 340.10

L. Cornelius Korinthos

Archaeological Museum, Cyrene, no inventory number

SEG LIII 192.25–7

mid second century ad 7

6

5

SEG LIII 192.14–16

prize amphora

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 16500 + A 16501

SEG LIII 192.22–4

c. 350 bc?

380s bc

prize amphora

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 8522

380s bc

Auletes

Auloidos

100–50 bc

Kitharoidos 200–160 bc or kitharistes

Luni 2003: 109, 112, figs. 17–18

Tsouklidou 2007: 109–13, figs. 1–8

G. R. Edwards 1957: 346 no. 41, pl. 84b

Theatrical 162 bc competitions

SEG XLI 115 col. III.39–43

FdD III.4 477

(name not preserved)

victors’ list

statue base

statue base

statue base single class

IG II2 3169/70.8–12 = IG II3.4 629.8–12

late second or early third century ad

Valerius Eklektos of Sinope

probably ad 255

statue base single class

IG II2 3169/70.8–12 = IG II3.4 629.8–12

SEG XIV 316.1–8

Valerius Eklektos of Sinope

probably ad 251

statue base single class

IG II2 3169/70.8–12 = IG II3.4 629.8–12

C. Ioulius Bassos

Valerius Eklektos of Sinope

probably ad 247

statue base single class

IG II2 3169/70.8–12 = IG II3.4 629.8–12

Class of event

statue base single class

Type of evidence

SEG LIV 536.9

ad 150–200

Valerius Eklektos of Sinope

probably ad 24313

Herald or actor

L. Septimius Aurelius Markianos

before ad 215 or 21912

Herald (cont.)

Name of victor Reference or inventory number

Date

Event

Table 5.2 (cont.) References for vases

P. Aelius Aristeides (contestant)

ad 155 (?)17

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

statue base

statue base

Aelius Aristeides, Oration 1 (Lenz and Behr) speech given at contest

IG XII.4 939

IG II2 3157.4–6 = IG II3.4 561.4–6

Thrasyllos FHG III 504–5 fr. 6; quoted by history Diogenes Laertius 3.56; Suda s.v. τετραλογία

See discussion in Chapter 5. I understand these satyrs as real satyrs, who have come to participate in the Panathenaia as kitharoidoi. Here, as on many other vessels, the satyrs imitate the actions of humans. Despite Bélis’ claim, the text is explicit that Nikokles did not win at the Panathenaia with a dithyrambic chorus; contra: Bélis 1995: 1053. For this restoration, see Shear 2003b: 91 with note 14. For this restoration, see Shear 2003b: 91 with note 14. On the date, see Chapter 5 note 34. On the date, see Lattimore 1996: 34–7; contra: Moretti 1991: 182–7; Strasser 2006: 314. As dated by IG XII.4. Segre in Iscr. Cos dated the inscription to the first century bc. Stephanis lists him as an auletes; Stephanis 1988: 86–7 no. 387. The dramatic date belongs to the late fifth century and the later stages of the Peloponnesian War. Since the synaulia properly involved at least two musicians playing auloi together, its practitioners are properly synauletai and not synauloidoi. Consequently, SEG LIII 192.31 should be corrected to synauletai. For this restoration, see Shear 2003b: 93, 94. On the date, see Strasser 2004: 189–219. On the dates of Valerius Eklektos’ victories, see Strasser 2018: 257–8. Thrasyllos, who was active during the reign of Tiberius, uses the imperfect tense to describe the competitions, hence this date. Schmalz’s date, ‘second half of the first century ad (perhaps late Julio-Claudian)’, seems too precise for the evidence; Schmalz 2009: 79. Spawforth 1997: 198 note 50. Behr 1973: 3; contra: J. H. Oliver 1968: 33–4; cf. Oudot 2008: 32; Trapp 2017: 10–11.

(name not preserved)

ad 4–1416

Enkomion

1

(name not preserved)

first century ad 15

New tragedies

before ad 14–3714

408

Tables

Table 5.3 Athletic events for men: literary and epigraphical sources Type of evidence

Event

Date

Name of individual

Reference

Stadion

perhaps 506 bc 1

Thessalos of Corinth

Pindar, Olympian 13.37 9 victory ode with scholia on Pindar, Olympian 13.37 8

380s bc

Diaulos

SEG LIII 192.71 3 2

probably 198 bc

Antonos, son of Artemidoros, Samian

182 bc

Poseidoni[o]s, son of IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI Polemarchos, Sidonian 114.20 1

158 bc

Timokles, son of Cha[rikl]es, Achaian from Sikyon

IG II2 2316.5 6

victors’ list

175 150 bc

D[ ]eas, son of [Pai]nios, Chrysaorean from Alaba[n]da

IG II2 2315.35 6

victors’ list

ad 150s

M. Aurelius Heras

SEG XXXVII 712, epigram, line 16

statue base

after ad 2172

[Septi]mius Au[r]elius S[ ] of [Ale]xandri[a]

Agora XVIII C205.1 4 = IG II3.4 628.2 4

statue base

perhaps 506 bc 3

Thessalos of Corinth

Pindar, Olympian 13.37 9 victory ode with scholia on Pindar, Olympian 13.37 8

400 350 bc

(name not preserved)

IG II2 2312.94

victors’ list

SEG LIII 192.74 6

prize list

(name not preserved)

SEG XI 338.1 4

monument base

probably 198 bc

Metrodoros, son of Klarieus, Kolophonian

IG II2 2313.45 6

victors’ list

182 bc

Proteas, son of Protomenes, Alabandan

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.22 3

victors’ list

158 bc

Agasilaos, son of Philoxenos, Kor[kyraia]n

IG II2 2316.6 8

victors’ list

380s bc c. 200 bc?

5

IG II 2313.43 4

prize list victors’ list victors’ list

Tables

409

Table 5.3 (cont.) Type of evidence

Event

Date

Name of individual

Reference

Hippios

182 bc

Bion, son of Philotas, Smyrnan

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.24 5

178 bc

Kall[

158 bc

Agas[ilaos], son of Philoxen[os], Korkyraian

IG II2 2316.8 9

victors’ list

175 150 bc

[Thr]ason, son of Thrasyboulos, Tenian

IG II2 2315.37 8

victors’ list

SEG LIII 192.68 70

prize list

Dolichos

Hoplites

380s bc

victors’ list

] IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114, victors’ list 1 line above line 57 and line 57

2

probably 198 bc

[ n]ios, son of IG II 2313.41 2 Diogenes, Chrysaorian fr[om ]

victors’ list

182 bc

Bion, son of Philo[t]as, IG II2 2314 + SEG Smyrnan XLI 114.18 19

victors’ list

158 bc

Diodoros, son of Antigenes, Halik[arnas]sian

IG II2 2316.3 5

victors’ list

175 150 bc

Demetrios, son of Niokles, Lalitan?

IG II2 2315.33 4

victors’ list

before ad 896

Titus Flavius Metrobios, son of Dmtrios, of Iasos

I.Iasos 108.5

statue base

perhaps 506 bc 7

Thessalos of Corinth

Pindar, Olympian victory ode 13.37 9 with scholia on Pindar, Olympian 13.37 8

380s bc

SEG LIII 192.89 91 2

prize list

probably 198 bc

[Minni]on, son of Paionios, Chrysaorian from Antio[ch]8

IG II 2313.53 4

victors’ list

182 bc

Polykleitos, son of Pithon, Alexandrian

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.34 5

victors’ list

410

Tables

Table 5.3 (cont.) Type of evidence

Event

Date

Name of individual

Reference

Hoplites (cont.)

178 bc

Xanthos, son of Xanth[os ]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.66 7

victors’ list

170 bc 9

Asklepiodoros, son of Triballos, Seleukan from the Tigr(os)

SEG XLI 115 col. I.5 6

victors’ list

158 bc

Mikkina[s, son of IG II2 2316.15 16 ]kleides, Ko[r]ky[r]aian SEG LVI 1359.67

ad 134

Pentathlon fifth century bc

Nikolaidas of Corinth

380s bc

Wrestling

[Simonides] 43 (Page, FGE: 262 4) = fr. 155 Bergk, lines 3 410 SEG LIII 192.77 9

victors’ list letter of emperor epigram

prize list

probably 198 bc

[ ]TOSOTIKOS, son IG II2 2313.18, 20 of Euemerios, [ ]11

182 bc

Nikomachos, son of Leonides, Achaian from Messene

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.26 7

victors’ list

178 bc

Nikomacho[s, son of Leonides, Achaian from Messene]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.58 9

victors’ list

158 bc

Timo[kles], son of Charikles, Achaian fro[m] Sikyo[n]

IG II2 2316.9 11

victors’ list

175 150 bc

Noumenios, son of Euthios, Athenian

IG II2 2315.39 40

victors’ list

c. ad 170 512

(name not preserved)

I.Ephesos 2072.12 13

statue base

13

after ad 229

Demetrios of Salamis

SEG XII 512.1, 6 = I.Anazarbos 25.1, 6

statue base

c. 450 bc?14

Theaios of Argos

Pindar, Nemean 10.33 7

victory ode

c. 450 bc? and at least 4 Theaios of Argos years after his previous victory

Pindar, Nemean 10.33 7

victory ode

380s bc

SEG LIII 192.80 2

prize list

victors’ list

Tables

411

Table 5.3 (cont.) Event

Boxing

Type of evidence

Date

Name of individual

Reference

278 bc

Sosibios of Alexandria

Kallimachos fr. 384.35 9 (Pfeiffer)15

victory ode

probably 198 bc

Polykrates, son of Hegestor, Tenedian

IG II2 2313.47 8

victors’ list

182 bc

Nikon, son of Philiskos, IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI Erythraian 114.28 9

victors’ list

178 bc

Nikolochos, son of A[ri ]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.60 1

victors’ list

158 bc

Apollonios, son of Hephaistion, [ ]ete

IG II2 2316.11 12

victors’ list

175 150 bc

I[ 4 ]K[ 4 ] SITOSAGIROU, Athenian

IG II2 2315.41 2

victors’ list

c. 120 bc?16

Menodoros, son of Gnaios, Athenian

Badoud, Fincker and Moretti 2015 16: 379, crown 1317

statue base

before ad 137 and 4 years after his victory in boys’ wrestling18

[Hermag]oras of Magnesia on the Sipylos

TAM V.2 1368.b1 4

statue base

perhaps ad 170s19

M. Aurelius Hermagoras of Magnesia on the Sipylos

I.Naples 49.1 2, crown 5

victory monument

perhaps ad 170s and at M. Aurelius least 4 years after his Hermagoras of previous victory Magnesia on the Sipylos

I.Naples 49.1 2, crown 5

victory monument

before 464 bc

Diagoras of Rhodes

Pindar, Olympian 7.80 2

victory ode

SEG LIII 192.83 5

prize list

probably 198 bc

Epinikos, son of Thalon, Ptolemaian from [Barka]20

IG II2 2313.49 50

victors’ list

182 bc

Polydeukes, son of [[Neoptolem]]os, Antiochan from Daph(ne)

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.30 1

victors’ list

178 bc

Panthous, son of D[io]nys[ ]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.62 3

victors’ list

380s bc

412

Tables

Table 5.3 (cont.) Name of individual

Reference

Type of evidence

170 bc

[

SEG XLI 115 col. I.1 2

victors’ list

158 bc

Kle[a]gene[s, son of IG II2 2316.12 13 Lykino]s, Achaian from Corinth

Event

Date

Boxing (cont.)

175 150 bc

[ , son of ]ares [ ]

IG II2 2315.43 4

victors’ list

before ad 13221

M. Ioustios Marcianus Rufus of Sinope

I.Sinope 105.1 2, 6 7

victory monument

c. ad 170 522

Marcus Tullius [ ] of IG II2 3163.12 13, shield Apamea in Bithynia i = IG II3.4 614.24 5 crown IX

Pankration perhaps 474 or 470 bc

c. 25

]tine

Kallias, son of Didymias of Athens

380s bc

victors’ list

victory monument

IG I3 893.7

staue base

SEG LIII 192.86 8

prize list

2

probably 198 bc

Taskomenes, son of Taskomenes, Magnesian from [Meander]23

IG II 2313.51 2

victors’ list

182 bc

Kallias, son of Sosikrates, Athenian

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.32 3

victors’ list

178 bc

Kallias, son of Sos[ikrates, Athenian]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.64 5

victors’ list

170 bc

Eue[. .]s[.]n, son of SEG XLI 115 col. I.3 4 Kall[ c. 4 An]tiochan from Daphn(e)

victors’ list

158 bc

Kleagenes, son of Lykinos, Acha[ian from] Corinth

IG II2 2316.13 15

victors’ list

c. 120 bc?24

Menodoros, son of Gnaios, Athenian

Badoud, Fincker and Moretti 2015 16: 379, crown 2; ibid.: 378, crown 2

statue base

ad 14325

T. Aelius Aurelius Menandros of Aphrodisias

Roueché, Performers, 91. ii.21 3 = I.Aphr. 12.920. ii.21 3

statue base

perhaps ad 171

M. Aurelius Damostratos Damas of Sardis

I.Sardis 79.A10 12 = SEG statue base LIII 1355.17 1926

Tables

413

Table 5.3 (cont.) Event

1 2 3 4 5

6

7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14

15 16

17

18 19 20 21

22

23 24 25 26

27

Date

Name of individual

Reference

Type of evidence

ad 18327

M. Aurelius Asklepiades of Alexandria

IGUR 240.25 6

statue base

Shear 2003b: 106; Barrett 1978: 16 note 2. Moretti 1987: 73 5. See above note 1. The ethnics of non Athenians suggest an international context, most obviously the Panathenaia. For the date, see: Moretti 1953: 117 21, no. 45; Moretti 1957: no. 592; Amandry 1980: 230 with 226, 244 7. The victory must belong before his Olympic victory in ad 89; I.Iasos 107; contra: Kennell 1988: 245 note 27. See above note 1. On the restoration, see Tracy and Habicht 1991: 230. Date of inscription: Tracy and Habicht 1991: 192 3. Most recent edition of text: Merkelbach 1987. See below Table 5.8 note 2. Note the absence of games for Commodus and Septimius Severus and the presence of the Augousteia at Pergamon, which first appears in the 170s; Slater 2008: 617; cf. Moretti 1953: 220. Moretti 1953: 254. The ode is sometimes dated to 444 bc(?), as, for example, in the Teubner text; contra: Bowra 1964: 411 (464 bc?). On the event, see Golden 1998: 87; contra: Habicht 1997: 190 1. Badoud, Fincker and Moretti date Menodoros’ two bases to c. 120 110 bc, but, since Tracy has assigned the base in Athens to a cutter active between 130/29 and 117/6, the base probably dates close to 120; Badoud, Fincker and Moretti 2015 16: 403 6; Tracy 1990: 187, 189. The Delian base erroneously records this victory as being in the pankration, not wrestling; Badoud, Fincker and Moretti 2015 16: 378, crown 13; cf. Badoud, Fincker and Moretti 2015 16: 383, 396 7. See Table 5.8 notes 4 and 5. His draw (rather than victory) at Olympia may belong in ad 177; Moretti 1957: no. 880. On the restoration, see Tracy and Habicht 1991: 230. Note the absence of the Panhellenia and any games in honour of Hadrian; on their foundation dates, see Moretti 1953: 196 7. Note the absence of games for Commodus and Septimius Severus and the presence of the Augousteia at Pergamon, which first appears in the 170s; Slater 2008: 617. On the restoration, see Tracy and Habicht 1991: 230. On the date, see above note 16. Shear 2012d: 164, 165. Compare SEG LIII 486 II.2, which Strasser argues also honours M. Aurelius Demostratos Damas; Strasser 2003: 274 92. He probably won this contest at more than one Panathenaia. On the dates of his career, see Strasser 2004 5: 439 46, but note that his victory in the Pythia at Delphi must belong in 184, as SEG LVI 1359.70 1 shows.

414

Tables

Table 5.4 Athletic events for men: Panathenaic amphorae Event

Date

Sprint

c. 560 bc

Museum and inventory number

Reference

Type of sprint

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1978.11.131

Bentz 1998: 6.007; Moore 1999: 42 3, figs. 7 8

men’s stadion (label)

Martin Luther Universität, Halle, 560

Bentz 1998: 6.002; Moore 1999: 46 fig. 14

men’s [ ] (label)

Chamay Collection, Geneva, no Bentz 1998: 6.006; inventory number Chamay 2001: 7 9, pl. 1

men’s stadion (label)

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 4432

Bentz 1998: 6.004; Eschbach 2017: 6.001

c. 560 550 bc

National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 10433

Bentz 1998: 6.046

c. 550 bc

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 9529

Bentz 1998: 6.010

National Museum, Athens, 2468

Bentz 1998: 6.044

diaulos (label)

Staatliche Antikensammlungen Bentz 1998: 6.016 und Glyptothek, Munich, 1451

men’s stadion (label)

Staatliche Antikensammlungen Bentz 1998: 6.017 und Glyptothek, Munich, 9399

men’s stadion (label)

c. 530 bc

c. 530 520 bc

c. 520 bc

National Museum, Copenhagen, Chr. VIII 797 (99)

Bentz 1998: 6.055

Antikenmuseum der Universität, Heidelberg, S 71

Bentz 1998: 6.054

Staatliche Antikensammlungen Bentz 1998: 6.061 und Glyptothek, Munich, 1453 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 14.130.12

Bentz 1998: 6.064

Museo Archeologico Regionale, Syracuse, 43458

Bentz 1998: 6.163

c. 520 500 bc

Musée d’art et d’histoire, Geneva, MF 150

Bentz 1998: 6.133

c. 500 bc

Musée d’art et d’histoire, Geneva, MF 151

Bentz 1998: 6.128

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, 915.244

Hayes 1981: pl. 22

Archaeological Museum, Aiani, 11123

Kephalidou 2001: 12 15, pls. 2, 3.1 2, 4 5

men’s [ ] (label)

Tables

415

Table 5.4 (cont.) Event

Date c. 500 490 bc

Museum and inventory number

Reference

Archaeological Museum, Samos, K 7461 + K 7462 + K 7473 + K 7463 + K 7464 + K 7558 + K 7559

Bentz 1998: 6.106; Kreuzer 2017: MSP 18, pl. 8

Archaeological Museum, Samos, K 7471 + K 7615 + K 7591 + K 7472

Kreuzer 2017: MSP 19, pl. 9

c. 500 480 bc

Musée du Louvre, Paris, F 277

Bentz 1998: 5.012

Musée du Louvre, Paris, F 280

Bentz 1998: 5.025

c. 480 460

Liebieghaus Museum alter Plastik, Frankfurt, ST V2

Bentz 1998: 5.094

Staatliche Museen, Berlin, F 1832

Bentz 1998: 5.071

Badisches Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe, 69.65

Bentz 1998: 5.075

440 430 bc National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1118

Bentz 1998: 5.171

c. 430 bc

Museo Civico Archeologico, Bologna, 18040

Bentz 1998: 5.162

Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, MA, 1960.309

Bentz 1998: 5.167

c. 410 400 bc

Cyrene Museum, Cyrene, no inventory number

Bentz 1998: 5.247

c. 410 390 bc

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 22926 + P 27371

Bentz 1998: 5.299, 5.300

c. 380 370 bc

Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, 50.193a, b

Bentz 1998: 4.004

367/6 bc

Musée du Cinquantenaire, Brussels, A 1703

Bentz 1998: 4.012

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 56.171.6

Bentz 1998: 4.011

350 330 bc Archaeological Museum, Izmir, Bentz 1998: 4.356 48 188.19485 341/0 bc

Greek and Roman Museum, Alexandria, 18.238

Bentz 1998: 4.078

336/5 bc

Archaeological Museum, Volos, Ka 4266/91

Bentz 1998: 4.090

Type of sprint

diaulos (turning post)

416

Tables

Table 5.4 (cont.) Event

Date

Museum and inventory number

Sprint (cont.)

328/7 bc

British Museum, London, B 611 Bentz 1998: 4.100

Distance race

Reference

Staatliche Museen, Berlin, 3981 Bentz 1998: 4.099 320/19 bc

Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, Ak.B.45

Bentz 1998: 4.114

c. 150 130 bc

National Museum, Athens, A 17934

Ameling, Bringmann and Schmidt Dounas 1995: 82 3, no. 37, figs. 23 6; Tsouklidou 2001: pl. 15.5 6

c. 130 120 bc

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 9659

Tsouklidou 2001: 33 40, pl. 13.1 2

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 9661β

Tsouklidou 2001: 33 40, pl. 14.2

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 9661γ

Tsouklidou 2001: 33 40, pl. 14.3

c. 520 bc

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 99.520

Bentz 1998: 6.058

c. 510 500 bc

Staatliche Antikensammlungen Bentz 1998: 6.087 und Glyptothek, Munich, 1454

c. 500 480 bc

Norwich Castle Museum, Norwich, 26.49

Bentz 1998: 5.011

National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1049 + 1050

Bentz 1998: 5.016

National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1048

Bentz 1998: 5.017

Isthmia Excavations, Isthmia, IP 1172

Bentz 1998: 5.020

c. 500 400 bc

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 24750

Moore 1997: 135 no. 263

c. 480 470 bc

Private Collection, New York, L 1982.102.3

Bentz 1998: 5.079

c. 440 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 168

Bentz 1998: 5.168; Eschbach 2017: 5.013

c. 430 bc

State Museum for the Art of Oriental People, Moscow, Uljap. 820.4 4

Bentz 1998: 5.164

340/39 bc

Musée du Louvre, Paris, MN 706

Bentz 1998: 4.079

Type of sprint

Tables

417

Table 5.4 (cont.) Event

Hoplites

Date

Museum and inventory number

Reference

333/2 bc

British Museum, London, B 609

Bentz 1998: 4.095

332/1 bc

Musée national de Sèvres, Sèvres, 7230

Bentz 1998: 4.098

c. 320 bc

J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, Bentz 1998: 4.130 76.AE.5

c. 250 200 bc?6

National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1113

Graef and Langlotz 1925: pl. 65

c. 550 540 bc

National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 921

Bentz 1998: 6.011

c. 540 530 bc

J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, Bentz 1998: 6.012 81.AE.203 A

c. 520 bc

Galleria d’Arte Geri, Milan, no Bentz 1998: 6.063 inventory number

c. 510 500 bc

Musée Vivenel, Compiègne, 986 Bentz 1998: 6.085 Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Havana, 236

Bentz 1998: 6.086

c. 500 450 bc

Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples, 81293

Bentz 1998: 5.092

Museo Civico Archeologico, Bologna, PU 198, side B

Bentz 1998: 5.142

c. 490 bc

Nicholas S. Zoullas Collection, Bentz 1998: 5.010 New York, no inventory number7

c. 490 480 bc

Archaeological Museum, Samos, K 7586 + K 7587 + K 7589

Kreuzer 2017: MSP 25, pl. 11

Archaeological Museum, Samos, K 7577 + K 7594 + K 7597 + K 7590 + K 7607 + K 7502

Kreuzer 2017: MSP 26, pl. 11

c. 480 470 bc

British Museum, London, B 143 Bentz 1998: 5.095

c. 430 410 bc

Archaeological Museum, Aigina, 332

Bentz 1998: 5.202

c. 400 350 bc

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 23034

Bentz 1998: 4.365

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 60.92.5

Bentz 1998: 4.366

Type of sprint

diaullos (label)

418

Tables

Table 5.4 (cont.) Event

Date

Museum and inventory number

Hoplites (cont.)

c. 375 350 bc

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 3798

Bentz 1998: 4.340

c. 360 330 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 480

Eschbach 2017: 4.240

344/3 bc?

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 6374

Bentz 1998: 4.073

c. 340 330 bc

Antikensammlung des archäologischen Instituts der Universität, Tübingen, S./10 1647ab

Bentz 1998: 4.367

336/5 bc

British Museum, London, B 608

Bentz 1998: 4.087

324/3 bc

Bibliothèque nationale, Cabinet Bentz 1998: 4.103 des Médailles, Paris, 248

323/2 bc

Musée du Louvre, Paris, MN 704

320/19 bc?8 Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 656 312/11 bc

Pentathlon c. 560 550 bc c. 520 bc

Reference

Bentz 1998: 4.105 Bentz 1998: 4.140; Eschbach 2017: 4.053

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 3866.1

Eschbach 2016: 176 8, no. 3, fig. 5

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 2071 + P 4340

Bentz 1998: 6.003

British Museum, London, B 134 Bentz 1998: 6.059 Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden, PC 8

Bentz 1998: 6.060

c. 520 510 bc

British Museum, London, B 136 Bentz 1998: 6.072

c. 510 500 bc

Musei Vaticani, Rome, 374

c. 500 480 bc

Staatliche Antikensammlungen Bentz 1998: 5.005 und Glyptothek, Munich, 1456 Museo Nazionale di Taranto, Taranto, 115474

Bentz 1998: 6.089

Bentz 1998: 5.028

c. 403/2 bc British Museum, London, B 605 Bentz 1998: 5.239 321/0 bc

Musée du Louvre, Paris, MN 705

Bentz 1998: 4.113

c. 150 125 bc

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 1918

Metaxa Prokopiou 1970: 97 9, pls. 31 3α

Type of sprint

Tables

419

Table 5.4 (cont.) Museum and inventory number

Event

Date

Reference

Wrestling

c. 540 bc

Badisches Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe, 65.45

Bentz 1998: 6.014

c. 520 510 bc

Musée municipal, Boulogne, 441

Bentz 1998: 6.070

c. 500 490 bc

Archaeological Museum, Samos, K 7581 + K 7582 + K 7579

Kreuzer 2017: MSP 20, pl. 10

c. 500 480 bc

Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo, Bentz 1998: 5.026 OH, 61.24 Staatliche Antikensammlungen Bentz 1998: 5.068 und Glyptothek, Munich, 1455

c. 480 470 bc

Hood Museum of Art, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, C.959.53

c. 410 390 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Bentz 1998: 5.296; Athens, PA 576 + PA 577 + PA Eschbach 2017: 4.219 4459

c. 375 362 bc

Antiquarium, Balagrai, 2279

Bentz 1998: 4.028; Maffre 2001: 27 9, pl. 10

373/2 bc

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1911.25710

Bentz 1998: 4.008

367/6 bc

British Museum, London, B 603

Bentz 1998: 4.014

363/2 bc

Archaeological Museum, Eretria, 14813

Bentz 1998: 4.025

National Museum, Athens, 20048

Bentz 1998: 4.026

National Museum, Athens, 20047

Bentz 1998: 4.027

National Museum, Athens, 20044

Bentz 1998: 4.050

National Museum, Athens, 20046

Bentz 1998: 4.052

National Museum, Athens, 20049

Bentz 1998: 4.053

Archaeological Museum, Eretria, 14814

Bentz 1998: 4.054

360/59 bc

336/5 bc

Bentz 1998: 5.074

Bibliothèque nationale, Cabinet Bentz 1998: 4.089 des Médailles, Paris, 247

Type of sprint

420

Tables

Table 5.4 (cont.) Museum and inventory number

Event

Date

Wrestling (cont.)

321/0 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 647

Bentz 1998: 4.138 + 4.290 + 4.291; Eschbach 2017: 4.049

312/1 bc

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 3889

Bentz 1998: 4.127; Eschbach 2016: 179 82, no. 5, figs. 7 8

c. 150 125 bc

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 5911

G. R. Edwards 1957: 340 no. 14, pl. 78

c. 530 bc

National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1042

Bentz 1998: 6.158

c. 530 520 bc

Museum of Mediterranean Bentz 1998: 6.160 Archaeology, Nir David, Israel, 72 5455, 571

c. 520 510 bc

Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Florence, 94772

Bentz 1998: 6.081

c. 520 500 bc?

once Basseggio Collection, Rome, no inventory number

Bentz 1998: 6.137

c. 510 500 bc

Antikensammlung der Universität, Erlangen, I 517 a

Bentz 1998: 6.134

c. 500 480 bc

Musée du Louvre, Paris, F 276

Bentz 1998: 5.014

Museo Nazionale di Taranto, Taranto, 115472

Bentz 1998: 5.029

Staatliche Museen, Berlin, F 1833

Bentz 1998: 5.067

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 19211

Bentz 1998: 5.050; Eschbach 2017: 5.004

c. 490 bc

Archaeological Museum, Samos, K 7500 + K 7490 + K 7554

Bentz 1998: 5.056 5.060; Kreuzer 2017: E1 (back), pl. 19

c. 410 400 bc

Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, 17553 (Ku.1913.4/389)

Bentz 1998: 5.237

c. 400 390 bc

Archaeological Museum, Herakleion, 26555

Bentz 1998: 5.257

Boxing

367/6 bc?12 British Museum, London, B 612 Musée du Louvre, Paris, CA 7427

Reference

Bentz 1998: 4.015 Bentz 1998: 4.016

Type of sprint

Tables

421

Table 5.4 (cont.) Event

Date 363/2 bc

Museum and inventory number

Reference

J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, Bentz 1998: 4.024 93.AE.55 Eleusis Museum, Eleusis, no inventory number

Bentz 1998: 4.036

350 325 bc Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 15613

Bentz 1998: 4.416; Eschbach 2017: 4.305

336/5 bc

British Museum, London, B 607

Bentz 1998: 4.086

324/3 bc

Musée du Louvre, Paris, MNB 3223

Bentz 1998: 4.102

Pankration c. 500 bc

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 16.71

Bentz 1998: 5.009

Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples, 112848

Bentz 1998: 6.127

Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden, PC 6

Bentz 1998: 5.002

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, Lewis.103.15

Bentz 1998: 5.019

Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples, 8129414

Bentz 1998: 5.091

c. 500 490 bc

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13

14

Type of sprint

367/6 bc

British Museum, London, B 604 Bentz 1998: 4.013

332/1 bc

British Museum, London, B 610 Bentz 1998: 4.097

Moore dates this amphora to c. 565 560 bc; Moore 1999: 40. Eschbach dates this amphora to c. 560 550 bc; Eschbach 2017: 105, no. 6.001. Moore dates this amphora to c. 565 560 bc; Moore 1999: 48, 49. This amphora lacks a label, but is otherwise canonical. Note the fragmentary dedicatory inscription preserving the victor’s name ([ ]ikles, son of Kallikles, of Herakleia) and the class (men), but not the event; Hellström 1965: 7 9, 55 no. 1, pls. 1 2, 31 2. Both the stadion and the diaulos are equally possible as the event; contra: Hellström 1965: 8 with note 6. G. R. Edwards 1957: 325. On the event: Tiverios 1987 90: 288 91; Neils 1992b: 35 6; Bentz 1998: 68; contra: von Bothmer in Cody 1983: 66 7, no. 9 (pyrrhiche); Reed 1987: 61 2 (euandria). On the date, see Eschbach 2007: 95. Eschbach dates this amphora to c. 400 390 bc; Eschbach 2017: 198, no. 4.219. This amphora almost certainly shows men. Eschbach dates this amphora to c. 480; Eschbach 2017: 110 11, no. 5.004. Both amphorae are uncanonical in their lack of labels and in the figures on top of the columns. Eschbach dates this amphora to both c. 330 320 and c. 340 330 bc; Eschbach 2017: 215 no. 4.305, 310 s.v. Boxen, no. 4.305. The event is identified by label; Bentz 1998: pl. 70.

422

Tables

Table 5.5 Athletic events for boys: literary and epigraphical sources Event Stadion

Diaulos

Hippios

Dolichos

Date

Type of evidence

Name of individual

Reference

probably 198 bc

[Al]kemachos, son of Charops, Epeirote

IG II2 2313.23 4

victors’ list

182 bc

(name not preserved)

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114, 2 3 lines above line 1

victors’ list

175 150 bc

[ ], son of Kleionikos [ 9 ] from Kyr[ ]

IG II2 2315.13 14

victors’ list

probably 198 bc

[Al]k[a]ios, son of Leukippos, Halikarnas[sian]

IG II2 2313.25 6

victors’ list

182 bc

(name not preserved)

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114, 1 line above line 1 and line 1

victors’ list

175 150 bc

Philokrates, son of Pythios, Kymaian

IG II2 2315.15 16

victors’ list

c. 300 bc

Herogeiton, [son of c. 8 10 , Magnesian]

FdD III.4 216.1 5

statue base

c. 50 bc

[Dr]akontomenes, son of Hierokles, of Halikarnassos

Syll.3 1064.8 9

statue base

SEG LIII 192.35 7

prize list

380s bc

SEG LIII 192.38 40 prize list

380s bc

2

probably 198 bc

[A]lkaios, son of Leukippos, Halikarnassian

IG II 2313.21 2

victors’ list

182 bc

(name not preserved)

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114, 4 5 lines above line 1

victors’ list

175 150 bc

[ , son of Patrean

IG II2 2315.11 12

victors’ list

late second century bc

Polystratos, son of Damichos, of IG II2 3149 = 3877 Athens

c. 50 bc

[Dr]akontomenes, son of Hierokles, of Halikarnassos

]kydes,

Syll.3 1064.8 9

statue base statue base

Tables

423

Table 5.5 (cont.) Event

Date

Name of individual

Pentathlon 380s bc Wrestling

Type of evidence

SEG LIII 192.41 3

prize list

before c. 473 bc

Timasarchos of Aigina

Pindar, Nemean 4.18 19

victory ode

before 468 bc 1

Epharmostos of Opous in Lokris

Pindar, Olympian 9.88 90

victory ode

SEG LIII 192.44 6

prize list

380s bc

Boxing

Reference

c. 350 bc

Xenokles

probably 206 or 202 bc

[ ] son of [ Sy[ 2 ]anos

probably 198 bc

2

IG II 3131 = IG II3.4 5882

statue base

IG II2 2313.4 5

victors’ list

[ ]s, son of Hegesianax, Kolophonian

IG II2 2313.27 8

victors’ list

182 bc

Kallikrate[s, son of Hegestratos, Ma ]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.2 3

victors’ list

175 150 bc

Nikandros, son of Timon, Argive

IG II2 2315.17 18

victors’ list

31 bc to ad 14

(name not preserved)

SEG LIX 411 col. 1.1, 10

statue base

before ad 1373

[Hermag]oras of Magnesia on the Sipylos

TAM V.2 1368. b1 3

statue base

SEG LIII 192.47 9

prize list

IG IV 428 col. I.5

statue base

t]os,

380s bc 225 200 bc 4

Kallistratos of Sikyon

2

probably 206 or 202 bc

[ ]s, son of Heroge[ito]n, Smyrnan

IG II 2313.6 7

victors’ list

probably 198 bc

[Aris]taios, son of Sopolis, Smyrnan

IG II2 2313.29 30

victors’ list

190 bc

[ , son of Smyrnan

Agora XVIII C197.5 65

victors’ list

182 bc

Moiras, son of Ar[k]esilaos, Koloph[onian]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.4 5

victors’ list

175 150 bc

Ap[o]ll[o]doro[s]?, son of Theodoros, [Ephe]sian?

IG II2 2315.19 20

victors’ list

]os,

424

Tables

Table 5.5 (cont.) Event

Date

Pankration 422 bc

Reference

Autolykos, son of Lykon, of Athens

Xenophon, Symposium 1.2; Athenaeus 5.187f; cf. Athenaeus 5.216d e

dialogue

SEG LIII 192.50 2

prize list

380s bc

1 2

3 4 5 6

Type of evidence

Name of individual

2

probably 198 bc

[ ]m[ ], son of Ana[x]ikles, Koan

IG II 2313.31 2

victors’ list

190 bc

[ , son of Dio]nysodoros, Prienean

Agora XVIII C197.7 8

victors’ list

182 bc

Kallikrates, son of Hegestratos, Ma[ ]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.6 7

victors’ list

175 150 bc

[ A[

IG II2 2315.21 2

victors’ list

ad 1196

P. Aelius Aristomachos of Magnesia on the Maeander

]nos, son of Nikanor, ]

I.Magnesia statue base 180.9 11; 181.9 10

The date of his Olympic victory as a man; P.Oxy. 222; Janell 1927: 344 9, col. I.37. The event must be wrestling and not the pankration, as Preuner suggested, because there is not enough room to restore the latter contest. The date of his victory at Olympia in men’s wrestling; TAM V.2 1368.a3 6. On the date of the monument, see H Müller 1989: 516 21; Sève 1991; contra: Cabanes 1988: 64 7. For the text and its date, see Appendix 8 below. Shear 2012d: 160 1.

Table 5.6 Athletic events for boys: Panathenaic amphorae Event

Date

Sprint

c. 530 520 bc Museo Nazionale, Vulci, 64220

Bentz 1998: 6.050

c. 475 460 bc Musei Vaticani, Rome, 375

Bentz 1998: 5.080

c. 430 420 bc National Museum, Athens, Akropolis 1124

Bentz 1998: 5.185

c. 403/2 bc

Museum and inventory number

References

Roemer und Pelizaeus Museum, Hildesheim, Bentz 1998: 5.244 1253 Cyrene Museum, Cyrene, 317/31

c. 370 365 bc Apollonia Excavations, Apollonia, 1151

Bentz 1998: 5.246; Maffre 2001: 26 7, pl. 9.3 4 Maffre 2006: 222 3, fig. 2

Tables

425

Table 5.6 (cont.) Event

Date

Museum and inventory number

Distance race c. 440 430 bc Museo Civico Archeologico, Bologna, 18039 Pentathlon

c. 460 bc

2

Bentz 1998: 5.166

Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, MA, 1959.128

Bentz 1998: 5.175

Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, 36061

Bentz 1998: 5.172

Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples, Stg. 693

Bentz 1998: 5.090

c. 450 430 bc Museo Nazionale di Taranto, Taranto, 4601

Bentz 1998: 5.196

c. 400 390 bc Archaeological Museum, Herakleion, 265542

Bentz 1998: 5.249

Pankration 1

Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples, 86333 (RC 184)

c. 520 510 bc Museo Nazionale di Taranto, Taranto, 12220 Bentz 1998: 6.077 c. 430 bc

Boxing

Bentz 1998: 5.163

c. 500 480 bc Tolmeita Excavations, Tolmeita, no inventory Bentz 1998: 5.027 number c. 440 bc

Wrestling

References

(none preserved)

On the identification, see Christiansen 1984: 144; contra: Bentz 1998: 5.172. Against this identification of the class: Valavanis 1990: 329 with note 16.

Table 5.7 Athletic events for beardless youths: Panathenaic amphorae Event

Date

Museum and inventory number

References

Sprint

c. 520 bc

Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam, 18971

Bentz 1998: 6.057

380/79 bc

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 27556

Bentz 1998: 4.005

apparently Kyoto

Bentz 1998: 5.021; Peters 1942 : pl. 8

c. 410 400 bc

National Museum, Copenhagen, 138122

Bentz 1998: 5.228

c. 430 420 bc

Museum of Art, Baltimore, 1960.55.3

Bentz 1998: 5.177

c. 430 410 bc

National Museum, Athens, 451

Bentz 1998: 5.198

Pentathlon c. 500 480 bc

Wrestling

426

Tables

Table 5.7 (cont.) Event

Date

Museum and inventory number

References

Boxing

c. 510 500 bc

Musée du Louvre, Paris, F 2783

Bentz 1998: 6.088

c. 440 430 bc

Civici Musei di Storia ed Arte di Trieste, Trieste, 1405

Bentz 1998: 5.199

c. 430 420 bc

University Museums, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, 1977.359

Bentz 1998: 5.176

c. 420 400 bc

Musée d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne, Marseilles, Bentz 1998: 5.203 3067

c. 400 390 bc

Archaeological Museum, Polygiros, 8.29

340/39 bc

Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Bentz 1998: 4.081 Museums, Cambridge, MA, 1925.30.124

Pankration 360/59 bc 1 2

3

National Museum, Athens, 20045

Bentz 1998: 5.256

Bentz 1998: 4.051

On the class, compare Moore 1999: 54 5 note 37. For the class, contrast the bearded men on: Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, 17553 (Ku.1913.4/ 389): Bentz 1998: 5.237; Cyrene Museum, Cyrene, no inventory number: Bentz 1998: 5.247. Against this identification of the event: Bentz 1998: 6.088.

Table 5.8 Athletic events for beardless youths: literary and epigraphical sources Event

Date

Stadion

380s bc

Name of individual

Reference

Type of evidence

SEG LIII 192.53 5

prize list

probably 198 bc

[ ]tos, son of Lysios, Epeirote from Cha[onia?]

IG II2 2313.33 4

victors’ list

190 bc

[ , son of Iasean

Agora XVIII C197.9 101

victors’ list

182 bc

Akastidas, son of Kleomnastos, Boioti[an]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.8 9

victors’ list

175 150 bc

[ , son of ]ydemos, IG II2 2315.23 4 Chrysaorean from My[lasa?]

]ros,

Pentathlon 380s bc

SEG LIII 192.56 8 2

victors’ list

prize list

probably 198 bc

[Deme]trios, son of IG II 2313.18 19 Diomn[e]s[tos, Bo]iotia[n]2

victors’ list

190 bc

[ , son of Kyzikean

Agora XVIII C197.11 12

victors’ list

182 bc

Akastidas, son of Kleomnastos, Boioti[an]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.10 11

victors’ list

]os,

Tables

427

Table 5.8 (cont.) Event

Wrestling

Boxing

Date

Name of individual

Reference

Type of evidence

175 150 bc

IA[. . .]L[.]CHLE[. . .], son of Am[y]ntas, Smyrnan

IG II2 2315.25 6

victors’ list

after ad 43

(name not preserved)

Iscr. Cos EV 218B.1 3 = IG XII.4 938.24 6

statue base

SEG LIII 192.59 61

prize list

380s bc probably 198 bc

[ ], son of Nikon, Ephesian

IG II 2313.35 6

victors’ list

182 bc

Melan[ta]s, son of Artemidoros, Sillye[an]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.12 13

victors’ list

175 150 bc

[ o]n, son of [D]ioskour[id]es, Tyrian

IG II2 2315.27 8

victors’ list

before ad 1374

[Hermag]oras of Magnesia on the Sipylos

TAM V.2 1368.b1 3

statue base

before ad 137 [Hermag]oras of Magnesia and 4 years after on the Sipylos his earlier victory5

TAM V.2 1368.b1 4

statue base

380s bc

SEG LIII 192.62 4

prize list

probably 198 bc

[Epithers]e[s], son of Metrodoros, Erythraian

IG II2 2313.37 8

victors’ list

182 bc

Basile[id]es, son of Herakon, Abandan

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.14 15

victors’ list

158 bc

Kratippo[s

IG II2 2316.1

victors’ list

175 150 bc

]

Menandros, son of Mynn[i]on, Lykian from Gagai

Pankration 380s bc

1

2

2

IG II 2315.29 30

victors’ list

SEG LIII 192.65 7

prize list

2

probably 198 bc

[Arch]ippos, son of Euxenos, Athenian6

IG II 2313.39 40

victors’ list

182 bc

Men[andros], son of Menippos, Achaian from Argos

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.16 17

victors’ list

158 bc

Menand[ros, son of Askle]piad[e]s, Ath[e]nian

IG II2 2316.2 3

victors’ list

175 150 bc

[E]urykleides, son of Eurykleides, Athenian

IG II2 2315.31 2

victors’ list

For the text and its date, see Appendix 8 below.

428

2

3 4

5

6

Tables

In this list, two names are given after the heading ‘pentathlon’, which is listed out of place apparently at the beginning of the athletic games. I assume that the first individual is in the beardless youths’, the second in the men’s class. On the basis of lines 9 13; cf. Habicht 1996b: 93. The date of his victory at Olympia in men’s wrestling; TAM V.2 1368.a3 6. This victory was won in the same year as his victory in boys’ wrestling. Interpreting the text as two victories at the Panathenaia and Sebasta in Neapolis in two successive festivals. On the restoration, see Tracy and Habicht 1991: 226.

Table 5.9 Open hippic events: literary and epigraphical evidence Type of evidence

Event and class Date

Name of individual

Reference

Horse race: adult horses

c. 375 350 bc

(name not preserved)

SEG LVII 270 = IG II3.4 5811

funerary monument

probably 202 bc

Noumenios, son of Apollod[o]ro[s, ]

IG II2 2313.10 11

victors’ list

probably 198 bc

Aristion, son of Nikon, Karpasiote fr[om Cyprus]

IG II2 2313.55 6

victors’ list

182 bc

[ ], son of [ Alexandrian

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.51 2

victors’ list

178 bc

Athenaios, [son of King Attalos] IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.90 1

victors’ list

170 bc

Asklepiades, son of Asklepiodoros, Zephyriote

SEG XLI 115 col. I.29 victors’ list

166 bc

Demophon, son of Sosiphanes, Antiochan from Kydnos

SEG XLI 115 col. II.30 1

victors’ list

162 bc

Hestiaios, son of Physkos, Antiocha[n ]

SEG XLI 115 col. III.19 20

victors’ list

158 bc

Hieron, the son of Gor[gi]os, L[a]odikean fr[o]m Ph[o]in[i]kia

IG II2 2316.50 2

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

(name not preserved)

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.44 5

victors’ list

182 bc

[ ], son of [ ]ristes, Karpasiote from Cyprus

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.45 6

victors’ list

Horse race: colts

380s bc

SEG LIII 192.98 100 prize list

]ades,

Tables

429

Table 5.9 (cont.) Event and class Date

Four horse chariot: adult horses

Type of evidence

Name of individual

Reference

178 bc

Hermione, daughter of P[olykrates, Argive from Achaia]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.94 5

victors’ list

170 bc

Apollodoros, son of Apollodoros, Kitian

SEG XLI 115 col. I.27 8

victors’ list

166 bc

Menodoros, son of Artemidoros, Antiochan from Mygdoni(a)

SEG XLI 115 col. II.24 5

victors’ list

162 bc

Asklepiades, son of Philiskos, [ ]

SEG XLI 115 col. III.13 14

victors’ list

158 bc

King Pt[ol]emy, son of King Ptolemy, the [e]lde[r]

IG II2 2316.44 6

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[ A[l]ex[and]r[ian]

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.38 9

victors’ list

c. 545 bc?

Alkmeonides, son of Alkmeon, of Athens

IG I3 1469

victory monument

before 479 bc

(name not specified)

Pindar, Isthmian 4.25 7

victory ode

probably 470s bc

Xenokrates of Akragas

Pindar, Isthmian 2.19 22

victory ode

c. 450 440 bc

Pronapes, son of Pronapides, of Athens

IG I3 8802

victory monument

c. 420 bc

(not preserved)

British School at victory Athens, Athens, S 24 monument + British Museum, London, 8143

c. 315 300 bc

Aristoboulos, son of Euboulides

Archaeological prize Museum, amphora Thessalonike, 181514 with graffito

before c. 240 bc?

Demetrios, son of Phanostratos, of Phaleron

IG II2 2971 crown i = honorary I.Eleusis 195 crown monument i = IG II3.4 281.36 8 crown IX

probably 202 bc

[Hermio]ne, daughter of [Poly]krates, [Argive]

IG II2 2313.14 15

380s bc

],

SEG LIII 192.104 6

prize list

victors’ list

430

Tables

Table 5.9 (cont.) Type of evidence

Event and class Date

Name of individual

Reference

Four horse chariot: adult horses (cont.)

c. 200 bc

(name not preserved)

IG XI.4 1164

victory monument

probably 198 bc

Polykrates, son of Mnasias, Argive

IG II2 2313.61 2

victors’ list

182 bc

[Ptolemy], son of [King] Pt[o]l[[em]]y, Macedonian

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.55 6

victors’ list

178 bc

King [Eumenes, son of King Attalos]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.86 7

victors’ list

170 bc

[O]lympio, daughter of Agetor, SEG XLI 115 col. I.34 victors’ list Lakedaimonian

166 bc

Sosiphanes, son of Zenobios, Antio[ch]an from Kydnos

SEG XLI 115 col. II.32 3

victors’ list

162 bc

[Q]ueen Kleopatra, daughter of SEG XLI 115 col. King P[tolemy] III.21 2

victors’ list

158 bc

Lysanias, son of Theod[o]ros, Sidonian

IG II2 2316.52 3

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[King Alexande]r, son of King Antiochos Epiphan[es]

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.46 7

victors’ list

c. 150 bc

(name not preserved)

IvO 188 crown 3

victory monument

SEG LIII 192.101 3

prize list

Four horse chariots: colts

380s bc before c. 300 290 bc

Nikagoras, son of Nikon, of Rhodes5

I.Lindos 68.1, 6

statue base

probably 202 bc

[Z]euxo, daughter of Polykrate[s, Argive]

IG II2 2313.8 9

victors’ list

c. 200 bc

(name not preserved)

IG XI.4 11646

victory monument

probably 198 bc

Zeuxo, daughter of Aristion, Kyrenaian

IG II2 2313.59 60

victors’ list

182 bc

[Zeuxo], daughter of [Polykr]ates, Argive from Achaia Philet[airos, son of King Attalos]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.49 50

victors’ list

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.88 9

victors’ list

Eirene, daughter of Ptolemios, Alexandrian

SEG XLI 115 col. I.33 victors’ list

178 bc 170 bc

Tables

431

Table 5.9 (cont.) Event and class Date

Synoris: adult horses

Synoris: colts

Type of evidence

Name of individual

Reference

166 bc

Eugeneia, daughter of Zenon, Antiochan from Kydnos

SEG XLI 115 col. II.28 9

victors’ list

162 bc

Agathokleia, daughter of Noumenios, L[ ]

SEG XLI 115 col. III.17 18

victors’ list

158 bc

Demetrios, son of Dionysios, A[n]tio[ch]an from Pyrhamos

IG II2 2316.48 50

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[ Myndian

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.42 3

victors’ list

]s,

380s bc

SEG LIII 192.110 12 prize list

before c. 350 bc

[ 5 ]los, son of Promachos, of Eleusis

IG II2 3126 = I.Eleusis victory monument 64 = IG II3.4 584

probably 202 bc

Eukrateia, daughter of Polykrates, [Argive]

IG II2 2313.12 13

victors’ list

probably 198 bc

Pythilas, son of Orthagoros, Athenian

IG II2 2313.57 8

victors’ list

182 bc

[ , daughter of from Achaia

178 bc

], Argive IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.53 4

victors’ list

Attalos, son of Kin[g Attalos]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.84 5

victors’ list

170 bc

Archagathe, daughter of Polykleitos, Antiochan from Pyrham(os)

SEG XLI 115 col. I.32 victors’ list

166 bc

Zenobios, son of Sosiphanes, Antiochan from Kydnos

SEG XLI 115 col. II.26 7

victors’ list

162 bc

Dioskourides, son of Agathokle[s,

SEG XLI 115 col. III.15 16

victors’ list

158 bc

My[r]on, the son of Hera[k]l[ei] IG II2 2316.47 8 des, An[tio]chan from Kydnos

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[ ]os, Laodikean of those by the s[e]a

]

380s bc

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.40 1

victors’ list

SEG LIII 192.107 9

prize list

2

182 bc

[ c. 6 ], daughter of [Mnasi]as, IG II 2314 + SEG Argive from Achaia XLI 114.47 8

victors’ list

178 bc

Sogenes, son of A[

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.92 3

victors’ list

170 bc

Kleainete, daughter of Karon, Ligystine

SEG XLI 115 col. I.30 1

victors’ list

]

432

Tables

Table 5.9 (cont.) Type of evidence

Event and class Date

Name of individual

Reference

Synoris: colts (cont.)

166 bc

Herakleitos, son of Antidoros, Antiochan from Daphn(e)

SEG XLI 115 col. II.22 3

victors’ list

162 bc

Menophila, daughter of Nestor, SEG XLI 115 col. L[ ] III.11 12

victors’ list

158 bc

Mastanabal, son of [K]ing Masinissa

IG II2 2316.42 4

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[King Alexande]r, son of King Antiochos Epiphan[es]

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.36 7

victors’ list

Zeugos: adult horses

380s bc

SEG LIII 192.116 18 prize list

Zeugos: colts

380s bc

SEG LIII 192.113 15 prize list

1 2 3

4 5 6

The class of the racehorse is not specified. See also Korres 2000: 296 311. Pemberton 1981: 310 13, pl. 54a; Waywell 1967: 19 26, pls. 1 3. Since the fragments come from Athens and the scene includes Athena, the victory commemorated was most likely won at the Panathenaia. Bentz 1998: 4.136; Tiverios 2001: 41 3, pl. 18.1 4. On this victory, compare Bentz 1998: 106 7 with further references. As preserved, the text cannot be complete, because the second chariot victory is without a class. It must be a colts’ victory to match the preserved victory with adult horses.

Table 5.10 Open hippic events: Panathenaic amphorae Event

Date

Museum and inventory number

References

Horse race

c. 530 520 bc

Archaeological Museum, Nauplion, Glymenopoulos Collection 1

Bentz 1998: 6.051

c. 520 510 bc

Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, 1510

Bentz 1998: 6.071

Musée du Louvre, Paris, F 274

Bentz 1998: 6.075

c. 520 500 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 288

Eschbach 2017: 6.010

c. 510 500 bc

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 07.286.80

Bentz 1998: 6.104

c. 500 480 bc

Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek, Munich, 8746

Bentz 1998: 5.049

Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden, PC 7

Bentz 1998: 5.069

Tables

433

Table 5.10 (cont.) Event

Date

Museum and inventory number

References

Bibliothèque nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, Paris, 244

Bentz 1998: 5.070

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 56.171.3

Bentz 1998: 5.047

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, 919.5.148

Bentz 1998: 5.048

British Museum, London, B 133

Bentz 1998: 5.046

Archaeological Museum, Samos, K 7513 + K 7514 + K 7524 + K 7525

Kreuzer 2017: MSP 35, pl. 13

Archaeological Museum, Samos, K 7517 + K 3862 + K 7526

Kreuzer 2017: MSP 36, pl. 14

National Museum, Warsaw, 142346

Bentz 1998: 5.073

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 750

Eschbach 2017: 5.011

c. 480 450 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 465

Eschbach 2017: 5.012

c. 450 400 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 175

Eschbach 2017: 5.055

c. 390 370 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 327

Eschbach 2017: 4.089

c. 380 360 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 27

Bentz 1998: 4.330; Eschbach 2017: 4.326

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 578 + PA 579 + PA 564

Bentz 1998: 4.331; Eschbach 2017: 4.325

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 26

Bentz 1998: 4.332; Eschbach 2017: 4.327

c. 367 360 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 661

Bentz 1998: 4.133; Eschbach 2017: 4.008

c. 350 330 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 836

Eschbach 2017: 4.094bis

348/7 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 13

Bentz 1998: 4.063; Eschbach 2017: 4.034

336/5 bc

Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek, Munich, 7767

Bentz 1998: 4.088

300 250 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 355

Eschbach 2017: 3.013

c. 490 480 bc

c. 480 460 bc

434

Tables

Table 5.10 (cont.) Event

Date

Museum and inventory number

References

Horse race (cont.)

c. 200 150 bc

Corinth Excavations, Corinth, C 46 51

G. R. Edwards 1957: 321, pls. 80, 81

c. 150 125 bc

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 18008

G. R. Edwards 1957: 341 no. 19, pl. 79

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 101

Eschbach 2017: 2.031

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 102

Eschbach 2017: 2.032

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 301

Bentz 1998: 4.395; Eschbach 2017: 2.033

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 302

Eschbach 2017: 2.034

c. 130 120 bc

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 10317

Tsouklidou 2001: 38 9 fig. 4, pl. 16.4

c. 125 100 bc

Archaeological Museum, Mykonos, 5

Kontoleon 1937: 577 no. 5, 583 fig. 11

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 6901

G. R. Edwards 1957: 342 no. 21, pl. 80

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 369

Eschbach 2017: 2.038

c. 550 540 bc

Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Florence, 977791

Bentz 1998: 6.008

c. 530 bc

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 56.171 5

Bentz 1998: 6.049

c. 520 bc

Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek, Munich, 1452

Bentz 1998: 6.062

c. 520 510 bc

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 56.171.4

Bentz 1998: 6.073

Musée du Louvre, Paris, F 273

Bentz 1998: 6.074

National Museum, Warsaw, 198605

Bentz 1998: 6.076

Musée Vivenel, Compiègne, 987

Bentz 1998: 6.132

Cyrene Museum, Cyrene, Sb 416.4

Bentz 1998: 6.166

c. 150 100 bc

Four horse chariot

Tables

435

Table 5.10 (cont.) Event

Date

Museum and inventory number

References

c. 510 500 bc

Cahn Collection, Basel, HC 878

Bentz 1998: 6.090

Museo Nazionale di Taranto, Taranto, 4595

Bentz 1998: 6.096

Sparta Excavations, Sparta, no inventory number

Bentz 1998: 6.097

Cyrene Museum, Cyrene, Sb 416.6

Bentz 1998: 6.167

Art Museum, Princeton University, Princeton, 1950.10

Neils 1992c: 174 no. 442

c. 500 bc

Sparta Excavations, Sparta, no inventory number

Bentz 1998: 6.101

c. 500 480 bc

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 07.286.79

Bentz 1998: 5.008

Antiken Museum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig, Basel, BS 494

Bentz 1998: 5.001

Hearst Collection, Los Angeles, no inventory number

Bentz 1998: 5.003

Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid, 10900

Bentz 1998: 5.004

Musée du Louvre, Paris, F 279

Bentz 1998: 5.013

Museo Nazionale di Taranto, Taranto, 115473

Bentz 1998: 5.030

Martin von Wagner Museum, Würzburg, V.III 301

Bentz 1998: 5.093

Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, 1909.13

Bentz 1998: 5.006

Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, 1909.12

Bentz 1998: 5.007

J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, 79.AE.9

Bentz 1998: 5.024

Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Florence, 94771

Bentz 1998: 5.031; Venuti 2001: 70 no. 5, pl. 21.4

Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Florence, 94793 + 94795 + 94802 + 94808 + 94811

Bentz 1998: 6.165 + 5.151; Venuti 2001: 70 1, no. 6, pl. 22.1

436

Tables

Table 5.10 (cont.) Event

Date

Museum and inventory number

References

Four horse chariot (cont.)

c. 490 480 bc

Archaeological Museum, Samos, K 948

Kreuzer 2017: MSP 31, pl. 12

Archaeological Museum, Samos, K 7533

Kreuzer 2017: MSP 32, pl. 12

Archaeological Museum, Samos, K 7534 + K 7541

Kreuzer 2017: MSP 33, pl. 13

Archaeological Museum, Samos, K 7539 + K 7538 + K 7545

Kreuzer 2017: MSP 34, pl. 13

Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Ferrara, Ferrara, 9356

Bentz 1998: 5.072

G. Geddes Collection, Melbourne, no inventory number

Bentz 1998: 5.078

Staatliche Museen, Berlin, 3979

Bentz 1998: 5.192

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 700

Bentz 1998: 5.193; Eschbach 2017: 5.031

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 10007

Bentz 1998: 5.173

c. 480 460 bc

c. 450 bc

c. 430 bc

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1952.548

Bentz 1998: 5.174

c. 430 410 bc

National Museum, Athens, 452

Bentz 1998: 5.200

c. 410 400 bc

Antikensammlung der Justus Liebig Universität, Giessen, S 1313

Bentz 1998: 5.231

c. 403/2 bc

British Museum, London, B 606

Bentz 1998: 5.238

Roemer und Pelizaeus Museum, Hildesheim, 1254

Bentz 1998: 5.245

c. 400 350 bc

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 61

Bentz 1998: 4.384

375/4 bc?

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 157

Bentz 1998: 4.007; Eschbach 2017: 4.003

c. 350 325 bc

Archaeological Museum, Pella, 83.5485

Bentz 1998: 4.405

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 679 + PA 658

Eschbach 2017: 4.309

344/3 bc

Bibliothèque nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, Paris, 2464

Bentz 1998: 4.075

316/15 bc

Archaeological Museum, Rhodes, no inventory numbers (multiple examples, perhaps as many as 14)

Bentz 1998: 4.125

c. 315 300 bc

Archaeological Museum, Thessalonike, 181515

Bentz 1998: 4.136; Tiverios 2001: 41 3, pl. 18.1 4

Tables

437

Table 5.10 (cont.) Event

Two horse chariot

Mule cart (apene)

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Date

Museum and inventory number

References

312/11 bc

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 3885

Eschbach 2016: 183 4, no. 6, fig. 10

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 3883.2

Eschbach 2016: 190 1, no. 10, fig. 15

c. 200 150 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 466

Bentz 1998: 4.409; Eschbach 2017: 2.028

c. 125 100 bc

Archaeological Museum, Mykonos, 2

Kontoleon 1937: 577 no. 2, 579 80 figs. 5 6

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 6901bis

G. R. Edwards 1957: 342 no. 22, pl. 80

c. 200 150 bc

Staatliche Museen, Berlin, 4950

G. R. Edwards 1957: 321, pl. 82

c. 150 100 bc

Excavations at Piano di Corzano Quarto Capello del Prete, no inventory number

Musco et al. 2009: 205 fig. 7.1, 206 fig. 8.5

c. 125 100 bc

Archaeological Museum, Mykonos, 1

Kontoleon 1937: 576 7, no. 1, fig. 2

Archaeological Museum, Mykonos, 3

Kontoleon 1937: 577 no. 3, 582 fig. 9

Archaeological Museum, Mykonos, 4

Kontoleon 1937: 577 no. 4, 583 fig. 10

Archaeological Museum, Mykonos, 8

Kontoleon 1937: 577 8, no. 8, 584 fig. 12a

c. 100 90 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 3507

Eschbach 2017: 1.005

c. 560 bc

British Museum, London, B 130

Bentz 1998: 6.001

c. 510 480 bc

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1986.11.1

Bentz and Kratzmüller 2001: 73 4, pl. 19.5

c. 500 480 bc

British Museum, London, B 131

Bentz 1998: 5.022

British Museum, London, B 132

Bentz 1998: 5.023

Moore dates this amphora to c. 550 bc; Moore 1999: 45. This amphora lacks a label, but is otherwise canonical. Against this identification: Tiverios 1991: 21 2 note 27 with further bibliography. Against this identification: Tiverios 1991: 21 2 note 27 with further bibliography. Note the graffito giving the victor’s name (Aristoboulos, son of Euboulides) and the event (four horse chariot for adult horses). On the date, see Eschbach 2017: 252, no. 2.028. Against this identification, Eschbach 2017: 263, no. 1.005.

438

Tables

Table 5.11 Tribal hippic events for individuals: the classical period Literary and epigraphical evidence Event

Date

Name of individual

Apobates

c. 390 bc 1

[K]rat[e]s, son of Agora XVIII C195 = IG Heortios, of Peiraieus II3.4 578

victory monument

c. 390 bc 2

(not preserved)

Akropolis Museum, Athens, 1326; Shear 2003a: 178, pl. 5a b

victory monument

For warriors: Horse race Zeugos Processional zeugos Javelin throw

Reference

Type of evidence

380s bc

SEG LIII 192.94 6

prize list

probably Phokos, son of 334 bc Phokion, of Athens

Plutarch, Phokion 20.1 3

biography

380s bc 380s bc 380s bc

SEG LIII 192.120 2 SEG LIII 192.123 5 SEG LIII 192.126 8

prize list prize list prize list

380s bc

SEG LIII 192.129 31

prize list

Panathenaic amphorae Event

Date

Museum and inventory number

Reference

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 112 + PA 123 + PA 124 + PA 127

Eschbach 2017: 4.331

c. 375 bc

Antikenmuseum der Universität, Heidelberg, 242

Bentz 1998: 4.336

c. 350 bc

Agora Excavations, Athens, P 19531

Bentz 1998: 4.134

340/39 bc

J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, 79.AE.147

Bentz 1998: 4.080

312/11 bc

Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ, Athens, A 3884

Eschbach 2016: 192 4, no. 12, fig. 18

Apobates c. 400 375 bc

Javelin throw

1 2

3

c. 410 400 bc British Museum, London, GR 1903.2 17.1

Bentz 1998: 5.229

c. 400 390 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 568

Bentz 1998: 4.411; Eschbach 2017: 4.228

c. 400 375 bc

Kerameikos Excavations, Athens, PA 90

Bentz 1998: 4.337; Eschbach 2017: 4.328

380s bc?3

Staatliche Museen, Berlin, 3980

Bentz 1998: 4.001

363/2 bc

Eleusis Museum, Eleusis, 2703

Bentz 1998: 4.040

On the date, see Shear 2007a: 112 note 87. This base is extremely close to Agora XVIII C195 in appearance, and it must date to the same period; Shear 2003a: 169 70, 178 with Shear 2007a: 112 note 87. On the date, see Chapter 5 note 3 with Shear 2003b: 96 7.

Tables

439

Table 5.12 Tribal hippic events for individuals: the Hellenistic period: contests on the Panathenaic Way Date

Name of individual

Apobates

182 bc

Kallias, son of Thrasippos, of Aigeis IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI victors’ list 114.36 7

178 bc

Antiochos, [

170 bc

Apemon, son of Aischraios, of Aiantis

166 bc

Aristokrates, son Menestratos, [of] SEG XLI 115 col. II.1 2 victors’ list Pa[ndionis]

158 bc

Anti[m]achos, son of Sa[ ], of Hippo[tho]ntis

146 or 142 bc

Ammonio[s], son of Ammonio[s], IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.48 9 [of is]

182 bc

Eurykleides, son of Mikion, of Erechtheis

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI victors’ list 114.38 9

178 bc

Mnesitheos, son of E[chedemos, of Pandionis]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI victors’ list 114.68 9

170 bc

Aristaichmos, son of Euboulos, of Oineis

SEG XLI 115 col. I.7 8 victors’ list

158 bc

Philo[krates], son of Polykleitos, of IG II2 2316.17 18 Ptolemais

146 or 142 bc

[ [Kekr]opis

182 bc

[K]ing Ptolemy, son of King Ptolemy, of [Ptol]emais

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI victors’ list 114.40 2

178 bc

Arketos, son of Ech[edemos, of Pandionis]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI victors’ list 114.72 3

146 or 142 bc

[ [K]ekropis

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.51 2

170 bc

Hagnias, son of Polykleitos, of Ptolemais

SEG XLI 115 col. I.10 11

166 bc

Lyandros, son of Nikon, of Aigeis

SEG XLI 115 col. II.3 4 victors’ list

158 bc

Philokrates, son of Polyk[leitos], of IG II2 2316.22 4 Ptolemais

146 or 142 bc

[ Kekropis

Dismounting charioteer (ἡνίοχος ἐγβιβάζων)

Diaulos for the four horse chariot

Diaulos for the zeugos

Reference

Type of evidence

Event

]

], of

], of

], of

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI victors’ list 114.70 1 SEG XLI 115 col. I.9

IG II2 2316.19 20

victors’ list

victors’ list

victors’ list

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.49 50

victors’ list

victors’ list

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.61 2

440

Tables

Table 5.12 (cont.) Type of evidence

Event

Date

Name of individual

Reference

Akampion for the four horse chariot

182 bc

[Mikion], son of [Eur]ykleides, of Erechtheis, the younger

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.43 4

victors’ list

178 bc

Mnesitheos, son of Ech[edemos, of Pandionis]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.74 5

victors’ list

146 or 142 bc

[ Ke[kropis]

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.53 4

victors’ list

170 bc

Sokrates, son of Sogenes, of Aigeis SEG XLI 115 col. I.12

victors’ list

166 bc

Sokrates, son of Sogenes, of Aigeis SEG XLI 115 col. II.7 8

victors’ list

146 or 142 bc

[ , son of Kekropis

Processional four horse chariot

178 bc

Mikion, son of Eurykl[eides, of Erechtheis]

Processional zeugos

170 bc

Sokrates, son of Sogenes, of Aigeis SEG XLI 115 col. I.13 14

victors’ list

158 bc

Philok[r]a[t]es, son of Polyk[leitos], of Ptolemais

IG II2 2316.20 2

victors’ list

146 or 142 bc

[ Kekropis

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.59 60

170 bc

Leon, son of Kallippos, of Kekropis SEG XLI 115 col. I.15

166 bc

Sogenes, son of Sogenes, of Aigeis

SEG XLI 115 col. II.5 6 victors’ list

146 or 142 bc

[ Kekropi[s]

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.57 8

158 bc

Philokrates, son of Polyklei[tos], of IG II2 2316.24 6 Ptolemais

150 or 146 bc

[ , son of Ptolemais

158 bc

Philokrates, son of P[o]lykle[i]to[s], of Ptolemais

IG II2 2316.26 8

150 or 146 bc

[ , son of Aiantis

k]les, of

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.2 3

146 or 142 bc

[ Kekropis

], of

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.55 6

Akampion for the zeugos

War zeugos

Diaulos for the synoris

Akampion for the synoris

], of

]ios, of

], of

, of]

k]les, of

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.63 4

victors’ list

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI victors’ list 114.76 7

victors’ list

victors’ list

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.4 5 victors’ list

Tables

441

Table 5.12 (cont.) Type of evidence

Event

Date

Name of individual

Reference

Warhorse

178 bc

Diokles, son of Charino[s, of Oineis]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI victors’ list 114.78 9

Diaulos for the horse

178 bc

Kalliphon, the son of Kal[ ]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI victors’ list 114.80 1

Akampion for the horse

178 bc

Agathokles, son of El[

170 bc

Xenon, son of Aischines, of Pandionis

SEG XLI 115 col. I.17 18

victors’ list

166 bc

Archiades, son of Nikesias, of Aiantis

SEG XLI 115 col. II.9 10

victors’ list

158 bc

Boularchos, son of Damokles, of Akamantis

IG II2 2316.28 31

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.6 8

170 bc

Theophilos, son of Theophilos, of Antiochis

SEG XLI 115 col. I.19 20

victors’ list

166 bc

Hanias, son of Polykleitos, of Ptolemais

SEG XLI 115 col. II.11 12

victors’ list

162 bc

(name not preserved)

SEG XLI 115 col. III.1 21

victors’ list

158 bc

Satyros, son of Hi[er]okles, of Kekropis

IG II2 2316.31 3

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[ , son of Ptolemais

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.11 12

Phylarchoi: Warhorse

Diaulos for the horse

Akampion for 170 bc the horse

] IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI victors’ list 114.82 3

] of Aigeis

]es, of

Ophelas, son of Habron, of Aigeis

SEG XLI 115 col. I.21 2

victors’ list

166 bc

Hagnias, son of Polykleitos, of Ptolemais

SEG XLI 115 col. II.13 14

victors’ list

162 bc

Ak[

]

SEG XLI 115 col. III.3 4

victors’ list

158 bc

[S]atyros, son of Hierokl[e]s, of Ke[k]ropis

IG II2 2316.33 6

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.15 16

] of [K]ekropis

442

Tables

Table 5.12 (cont.) Event Hippeis: Warhorse

Diaulos for the horse

Name of individual

170 bc

Patron, son of Archelaos, of Oineis SEG XLI 115 col. I.23 4

victors’ list

166 bc

Patron, son of Archelaos, of Oineis SEG XLI 115 col. II.15 16

victors’ list

162 bc

Euagion, son of Alket[es, of Oineis] SEG XLI 115 col. III.5 6

victors’ list

158 bc

Nikodoros, son of Nikesios, of Leo[nt]is

IG II2 2316.36 8

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[ ] of [Hipp]othontis

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.9 10

170 bc

Nikostratos, son of Archelaos, of Oineis

SEG XLI 115 col. I.25

victors’ list

166 bc

Nikostratos, son of Archelaos, of Oineis

SEG XLI 115 col. II.17 18

victors’ list

162 bc

Philanthes, son of Xenon, [of] O[ineis]

SEG XLI 115 col. III.7 8

victors’ list

158 bc

Leo[nt]ich[o]s, son of Archippos, of Oineis

IG II2 2316.38 9

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.13 14

Akampion for 170 bc the horse 166 bc

1

Reference

Type of evidence

Date

] of Oineis

Zoilos, son of Sokles, of Ptolemais SEG XLI 115 col. I.26

victors’ list

Nikogenes, son of Nikon, of Aigeis SEG XLI 115 col. II.19 20

victors’ list

162 bc

Euktimenos, son of Eudemos, [of] SEG XLI 115 col. A[ntiochis] III.9 10

victors’ list

158 bc

Thrasykles, son of Ar[ch]ikles, of Oineis

IG II2 2316.39 41

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI victors’ list 118.17 18

] of [

]is

For the restoration of the event, cf. SEG XLI 115 col. I.19, col. II.11; Shear 2007c: 138.

Tables

443

Table 5.13 Tribal hippic events for individuals: the Hellenistic period: contests in the hippodrome Date

Name of individual

Long distance racehorse

178 bc

Onesi[

170 bc

Euphranor, son of Olympos, of SEG XLI 115 col. I.35 6 Ptolemais

victors’ list

166 bc

Diopeithes, son of Orthagoras, SEG XLI 115 col. II.34 5 of Kekropis

victors’ list

162 bc

King Eumenes, son of King Att[alos, of Attalis]

SEG XLI 115 col. III.23 4

victors’ list

158 bc

Askle[p]iades, son of Androniskos, of Pan[di]onis

IG II2 2316.54 6

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.34 5

victors’ list

178 bc

Er[

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.98 9

victors’ list

170 bc

King Eumenes, son of King Attalos, of Attalis

SEG XLI 115 col. I.37 8

victors’ list

166 bc

Eukles, son of Hierophantes, of SEG XLI 115 col. II.36 7 Oineis

162 bc

Aration, son of Simos, of Aigeis SEG XLI 115 col. III.25 6

victors’ list

158 bc

Philokrates, son of Polykleitos, IG II2 2316.56 8 of P[to]lemais

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[ [P]tolemais

Four horse war chariot

Reference

Type of evidence

Event

]

] of Aigeis

]

] of

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.96 7

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.20 1

victors’ list

victors’ list

victors’ list

Four horse 170 bc chariot: adult horses

Pausimachos, son of Demokles, SEG XLI 115 col. I.39 40 of Aigeis

victors’ list

Processional zeugos

166 bc

Nikogenes, son of Nikon, of Aigeis

victors’ list

162 bc

Zenon, son of Menekrates, [of] SEG XLI 115 col. III.27 8 Akamant[is]

158 bc

Hagnias, son of Polykleitos of Ptolema[i]s

150 or 146 bc

[

SEG XLI 115 col. II.38 9

IG II2 2316.58 60

] of [Kekro]pis IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.22 3

victors’ list victors’ list victors’ list

444

Tables

Table 5.13 (cont.) Event

Date

Name of individual

Diaulos for the zeugos

178 bc

Char[

170 bc

Type of evidence

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.100 11

victors’ list

Hagnias, son of Polykleitos, of Ptolemais

SEG XLI 115 col. I.41 2

victors’ list

166 bc

Sogenes, son of Sogenes, of Aigeis

SEG XLI 115 col. II.40 1

victors’ list

162 bc

Seleukos, son of Theodorides, [of] Hippothont[is]

SEG XLI 115 col. III.29 30

victors’ list

158 bc

Philokrates, son of Polykleitos, IG II2 2316.60 2 of Ptolemais

150 or 146 bc

[

Akampion 162 bc for the zeugos

War synoris

Reference ]

] of [Ai]antis

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.24 5

[[Euxenos, son of Euxenos, [of] SEG XLI 115 col. III.33 4 Aka[mantis]]] IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.26 7

victors’ list victors’ list

victors’ list victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[ ] of [Hippotho]ntis

170 bc

Aristaichmos, son of Euboulos, SEG XLI 115 col. I.43 4 of Oineis

victors’ list

166 bc

Sokrates, son of Sogenes, of Aigeis

SEG XLI 115 col. II.42 3

victors’ list

162 bc

King Ptolemy, son of Kin[g Ptolemy], of Ptolemais

SEG XLI 115 col. III.31 2

victors’ list

158 bc

[Ph]ilo[k]rates, son of Poly[kl]eitos, of P[tolemai]s

IG II2 2316.62 4

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.28 9

victors’ list

] of [

]tis

Synoris: adult 170 bc horses

Hagnias, son of Polykleitos, of Ptolemais

SEG XLI 115 col. I.45 6

victors’ list

Diaulos for the synoris

178 bc

Polykr[

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.102 3

victors’ list

170 bc

Attalos, son of King Attalos, of SEG XLI 115 col. I.47 8 Attalis

victors’ list

166 bc

1. Diopeithes, son of Orthagoras, of Kekropis

victors’ list

]

2. Epikles, son of Kratios, of Oineis

SEG XLI 115 col. II.44 5, 46 7

Tables

445

Table 5.13 (cont.) Event

Akampion for the synoris

Date

Name of individual

Reference

Type of evidence

162 bc

tie: no victor

SEG XLI 115 col. III.35 6

victors’ list

158 bc

Astomachos, son of Sthenels, of ekropi[s]

IG II2 2316.64 6

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[ ] of [Hipp]othontis

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.30 1

victors’ list

178 bc

Polyk[

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.104 5

victors’ list

170 bc

1. Aristaichmos, son of Euboulos, of Oineis

SEG XLI 115 col. I.49 50, 51 2, 53 4

victors’ list

SEG XLI 115 col. II.48 9, 50 1, 52 3

victors’ list

SEG XLI 115 col. III.37 8

victors’ list

]

2. Pyrrhos, son of Pyrrhos, of Pandionis 3. Philokrates, son of Polykleitos, of Ptolemais 166 bc

1. Sogenes, son of Sogenes, of Aigeis 2. Timon, son of Timon, of Erechtheis 3. Eukles, son of Hierophantes, of Oineis

162 bc

1

Theophrastos, son of L[y]kiskos, Ere[[ch.[

]]]

158 bc

Philokrates, son of Polykleit[o]s, of P[to]lema[is]

IG II2 2316.66 8

victors’ list

150 or 146 bc

[

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.32 3

victors’ list

]es Ptolemais

For this restoration, cf. SEG XLI 115 col. I.41 of 170/69 bc; Shear 2007c: 137 note 18, 138.

Apobates Dismounting charioteer (ἡνίοχος ἐγβιβάζων) Diaulos for the four-horse chariot Diaulos for the zeugos Akampion for the fourhorse chariot Akampion for the zeugos Processional four-horse Chariot Processional zeugos War-zeugos Diaulos for the synoris Akampion for the synoris Warhorse Diaulos for the horse Akampion for the horse Phylarchoi: Warhorse Diaulos for the horse

Event

[line 72]

line 74

line 40

line 43

line 78 line 80 line 82

line 76

line 70 line 68

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114, col. II

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114, col. I

line 36 line 38

178 bc

182 B C

line 17 line 19

line 13 line 15

line 12

line 10

line 9 line 7

SEG XLI 115, col. I

170 bc

line 9 line 11

line 5

line 7

line 3

line 1 [not pres.]

SEG XLI 115, col. II

166 bc

[not pres.] [line 1]1

[not pres.]

[not pres.]

[not pres.]

[not pres.] [not pres.]

SEG XLI 115, col. III

162 bc

lines 28–9 lines 31–2

lines 24–5 line 26

lines 20–1

lines 22–3

line 19 line 17

IG II2 2316

158 bc

lines 6–7 line 11

line 4 line 2

[not pres.]

[not pres.]

[not pres.] [not pres.]

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.1–48

150 or 146 bc

Table 5.14 The development of individual tribal hippic contests on the Panathenaic Way in the second century bc

[not pres.]? [not pres.]?

line 55

line 59 line 57

[line 63]

line 61 line 53

[line 51]

[line 48] line 49

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.50–65

146 or 142 bc

11?

line 5 line 7 line 9

[line 3]

12

lines 36–7 line 38 lines 39–40

lines 33–4

12?

line 9 line 13 line 17

line 15

15?

[not pres.]? [not pres.]? [not pres.]?

[not pres.]?

1

For the restoration of the event, cf. SEG XLI 115 col. I.19, col. II.11; Shear 2007c: 138.

Notes: [not pres.] indicates that the event is not preserved on the stone but was probably held. [line + number] indicates that the entry is either completely or mostly restored. The first part of the first list of IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118 and the second part of the second list are not preserved, and only minimal restorations have been suggested.

11

12

Total number of races

8

line 15 line 17 line 19

line 23 line 25 line 26

4

line 13

line 21

Akampion for the horse Hippeis: Warhorse Diaulos for the horse Akampion for the horse

line 41 line 43 line 45 line 47

[line 100]1

[line 102]

[line 104]

5

Akampion for the synoris

Total number of races

166 bc

162 bc

10

lines 44, 46 (2 races) lines 48, 50, 52 (3 races)

8

line 37

line 35

line 27 line 29 [line 33] line 31

line 38 line 40 line 42

line 23 line 25

SEG XLI 115, col. III

line 34 line 36

SEG XLI 115, col. II

1

For this restoration, cf. SEG XLI 115 col. I.41 of 170/69 bc; Shear 2007c: 137 note 18, 138.

Notes: [line + number] indicates that the entry is either completely or mostly restored. The second list of IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118 does not preserve these events, hence its absence here.

10

lines 49, 51, 53 (3 races)

line 35 line 37 line 39

[line 96] [line 98]

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114, col. II

Long-distance racehorse Four-horse war-chariot Four-horse chariot: adult horses Processional zeugos Diaulos for the zeugos Akampion for the zeugos War-synoris Synoris: adult horses Diaulos for the synoris

Event

170 bc SEG XLI 115, col. I

178 bc

7

line 66

line 64

lines 62–3

line 58 line 60

line 54 lines 56–7

IG II2 2316

158 bc

Table 5.15 The development of individual tribal hippic contests in the hippodrome in the second century bc

8

[line 32]

[line 30]

[line 22] [line 24] [line 26] line 28

line 34 [line 20]

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.1–48

150 or 146 bc

Tables

449

Table 5.16 Tribal events for teams Event

Date

Pyrrhiche: boys

380s bc

Name of individual and tribe

Type of evidence

Reference SEG LIII 192.133

prize list

SEG XXIII 103 front.1 4 = IG II3.4 433A.1 3

victory monument

Pyrrhiche: 380s bc beardless youths

SEG LIII 192.134

prize list

Pyrrhiche: men

Aristophanes, Clouds 987 91

comedy

Lysias 21.1

court speech

SEG LIII 192.135

prize list

370s bc

choregos: (name not preserved)

c. 423 bc 410 bc

choregos: speaker of Lysias 21

380s bc Pyrrhiche: class unclear

Euandria

390s bc

choregos: Dikaiogenes of Kydathenaion (tribe: Pandionis)

Isaios 5.36

court speech

c. 330 bc 2

(choregos:) Xenok[les, son of Xeinis, of Sphettos?]

IG II2 3026 = IG II3.4 434

victory monument

before 415 bc 3

choregos: speaker of [Andokides] 4

[Andokides] 4.42

speech

380s bc c. 350 bc

Torch race

SEG LIII 192.136 (name not preserved)

2

prize list 3

IG II 3022.1 4 = IG II .4 545.1 3

victory monument

late 330s bc

Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia 60.3

study of constitution

just before or about 330 324 bc 4

Deinarchos 16 fr. 3; repeated by Harpokration s.v. εὐανδρία

court speech

before 421/0 bc

IG I3 82.30 35

decree about the Hephaisteia

before 405 bc

Aristophanes, Frogs 1087 98

comedy

380s bc

SEG LIII 192.137 8

prize list

450

Tables

Table 5.16 (cont.) Event

Date

Name of individual and tribe

Torch race (cont.)

c. 350 bc

(name not preserved)

c. 350 bc

gymnasiarchos: [ 4 5 SEG LVI 230 = IG II3.4 427 victory ]pos, son of Stratokles6 monument

346 bc

gymnasiarchos: Xenokles (son of Xeinis, of Sphettos) tribe: Akamantis

IG II2 3019 = IG II3.4 430

victory monument

338 bc

gymnasiarchos: Autosthenides, son of Austosthenides, of Xypete tribe: Kekropis

IG II2 3023 = IG II3.4 431

victory monument

SEG LIII 192.139 43

prize list

Contest of ships 380s bc Anthippasia

Cyclic chorus

c. 390 bc 7

Type of evidence

IG II2 3022.1 4 = IG II3.4 545.1 3

victory monument

SEG LIII 197 = IG II3.4 243 victory monument

380s bc

SEG LIII 192.144 8

prize list

360s bc

Xenophon, De equitum magistro 3.10 13

technical treatise

c. 350 bc

phylarchos: SEG LIII 198 = IG II3.4 251 victory Hierophanes, son of monument Polyaratos, of Alopeke tribe: Antiochis

late fourth or early third century bc

(not preserved)

Agora XVIII C159 = IG II3.4 263

victory monument

probably 290 bc 8

phylarchos: Glaukon, son of Eteokles, of Aithalidai (tribe: Antigonis)

IG II2 3079 crown III = IG II3.4 528.10 12 crown III; Goette 2007a: 142 fig. 14

victory monument

[Xenophon], Athenaion Politeia 3.4

political pamphlet

420s bc 9 380s bc before 347/6 bc

1

(not preserved) tribe: Leontis

Reference

SEG LIII 192.149 53 choregos: Demosthenes Demosthenes 21.156 with of Paiania scholia on this passage (tribe: Pandionis)

On the class, see Chapter 5 note 95.

prize list court speech

Tables

2

3 4

5 6 7 8

451

Ceccarelli 1998: 34, 244 no. V.3; Rausa prefers a date of c. 345 340 bc; Rausa 1998: 218 19, 234. On the basis of the reliefs, the competitors should have been either beardless youths or men. On the chronology, see Rhodes 1994: 88 91. This case against Agasikles is mentioned in the presence tense in Hypereides, Euxenippos 3, a speech dating between 330 and 324 bc. On this passage, see Chapter 3. His deme is presumably Acharnai, which was part of the tribe Oineis; Makres 2004 9: 144. On the date, see Shear 2007a: 113 note 89. On the dates of Glaukon’s victory and of the monument (282/1 bc), see Appendix 5.

Table 5.17 Restored programme for the games in 566 bc Musical games

auloidos auletes# kitharistes kitharoidos# rhapsode?

Athletic games

Hippic games

Men

Boys

stadion diaulos hoplites dolichos* pentathlon wrestling* boxing* pankration*

stadion diaulos*? dolichos# pentathlon# wrestling** boxing*

horse race* four horse chariot apene

Competitions for Athenians apobates

* event attested at both the Olympia and the Pythia in 566 bc # event attested only at the Pythia in 566 bc ** event attested only at the Olympia in 566 bc

Table 5.18 Restored programme for the games in 482 bc Musical games Men

Boys

auloidos auloidos auletes auletes? kitharistes kitharistes kitharoidos rhapsode

Hippic games

Athletic games Men

Youths

Boys

stadion diaulos hoplites dolichos pentathlon wrestling boxing pankration

stadion pentathlon wrestling? boxing pankration?

stadion horse race diaulos? four horse dolichos chariot pentathlon apene wrestling boxing pankration?

Competitions for Athenians apobates pyrrhiche (3 classes) euandria? torch race?

Boys

auloidos kitharistes

Men

rhapsode kitharoidos auloidos kitharistes auletes synauletai

Musical games

dolichos stadion diaulos pentathlon wrestling boxing pankration hoplites

Men stadion pentathlon wrestling boxing pankration

Youths

Athletic games

dolichos stadion pentathlon wrestling boxing pankration

Boys

Table 5.19 The programme for the games in the 380s bc

horse race four-horse chariot synoris zeugos

Adult horses four-horse chariot synoris zeugos

Colts

Hippic games: open events

apobates warriors: horse race zeugos processional zeugos javelin throw

Individuals

pyrrhiche (3 classes) euandria torch-race contest of ships anthippasia cyclic chorus (2 classes)

Teams

Competitions for Athenians

Tables

453

Table 6.1 Athenian benefactors of the city Recipient of megistai Official of timai city

Date of festival

Date of inscription Reference

318 bc 1

after 314/ 3 bc

IG II2 1479.18 212

302 bc

303/2 bc

IG II2 492.25 93

Phaidros, son of 258 bc Thymochares, of Sphettos

259/8 bc 4

IG II2 682.71 8 = IG II3.1 985.71 8

Herakleitos, son of 254 bc?5 Asklepiades, of Athmonon

255/4 bc?

IG II2 677.10 16 = IG II3.1 1034.10 16

Kephisodoros [

198 bc

200/ 199 bc 6

IG ΙΙ3.1 1292.45 50

190 bc

194/3 bc

IG II3.1 1256.56 60

kosmetes of ephebes

[ ], a hipparchos of the 186 bc archonship of Symmachos

187/6 bc

IG ΙΙ3.1 1281.3 7

hipparchos

Nikogenes, son of Nikon, of Philaidai

158 bc

161/0 bc

IG II2 956.29 35

agonothetes of Theseia

Theo[

154 bc

157/6 bc

IG II2 957.17 20

agonothetes of Theseia

Miltiades, son of Zoilos, of Marathon

150 bc

153/2 bc 7

IG II2 958.25 7, 29 31

agonothetes of Theseia

Byttakos, son of Pyrrhos, of Lamptrai

142 or 138 bc?

c. 140 bc

IG II2 963.2 4

agonothetes of Theseia

[M/Ze]nodoros, son of Eumenes, of Trinemea

134 bc?

c. 135 bc

Agora XVI 310.42 8

Apollonios, son of Apollonios, of Sounion

126 bc

127/6 bc

SEG XV 104.94 7

kosmetes of ephebes

Dionysios, son of Sokrates, 118 bc of Phyle

122/1 bc

IG II2 1006 + SEG XIX 108.91 4 = Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 26.91 4

kosmetes of ephebes

Theocharis, son of Hestiaios, of Kerameis

118/7 bc

IG II2 1008.66 70

kosmetes of ephebes

Name Konon [

]

Apollonides, son of Charops, of Peiraieus

]

Chremes, son of Theo[ 3 ]dos, of Myrrhinoutta

]

114 bc

▲ probably agonothetes of Panathenaia ▲

▲

454

Tables

Table 6.1 (cont.) Recipient of megistai Official of timai city

Date of festival

Date of inscription Reference

114 bc

116/5 bc

IG II2 1009.49 53 = Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 30.73 7

kosmetes of ephebes

Eudoxos, son of Eudoxos, 102 bc of Acherdous

106/5 bc

IG II2 1011.46 9

kosmetes of ephebes

Timon, son of Timarchides, of Boutadai

101/0 bc

IG II2 1028.96 101 = Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 32.121 6

kosmetes of ephebes

Name Demetrios, son of Ouliades, of Alopeke

1

2 3

4 5 6 7

98 bc

For the dates, see D. Harris 1995: no. V.420; D. Harris 1991: 156. The man’s name is sometimes restored as Konon [(III), son of Timotheos, of Anaphlystos]; Kirchner in IG II2; D. Harris 1995: no. V.420; Habicht 1997: 49; contra: Paschidis 2008: 68 note 2. The festival is partially restored. The name of the festival is restored, but no other festival has athletic games connected with the announcement of crowns at this time. On the date, see Shear 2020: 276 with further references. For the date, see the discussion in Chapter 6 with note 67. On the date, see Knoepfler 2015a: 272 83. Contra: Kennell 1999: 254 60.

Table 7.1 Ephebes as benefactors of the city Class of ephebes

Date of festival

Date of inscription

Reference

ephebes of Diodotos

202 bc

203/2 bc

IG II3.1 1176.31 5

ephebes of Sositeles

194 bc

196/5 bc

IG II3.1 1256.26 32

Crown of kosmetes announced

▲

3

ephebes of [ 6 ]

186 or 182 bc?

c. 185 bc

IG II .1 1362.6 9

ephebes of Eupolemos

probably 182 bc

after 185/4 bc

IG II3.1 1290.6 10

ephebes of Chairippos

174 bc

176/5 bc

IG II3.1 1313.37 40

ephebes of Dionysios after 126 bc Lykiskos

127/6 bc

SEG XV 104.32 7

▲

ephebes of Demetrios

118 bc

122/1 bc

IG II2 1006.40 3 = Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 26.40 3

▲

ephebes of Hipparchos

114 bc

118/7 bc

IG II2 1008.33 6

▲

Tables

455

Table 7.1 (cont.) Class of ephebes

Date of festival

Date of inscription

ephebes of Menoites

114 bc

116/5 bc

IG II2 1009.14 18 = Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 30.38 42

▲

ephebes of Aristarchos

102 bc

106/5 bc

IG II2 1011.24 6

▲

Reference

2

ephebes of Echekrates

98 bc

101/0 bc

IG II 1028.45 9 = Perrin Saminadayar 2007: T 32.45 9

ephebes of Herakleitos after Argeios

94 bc

96/5 bc 1

IG II2 1029.29 32

ephebes of [

94 or 90 bc?

before 93/2 bc 2

IG II2 1030.39 43

ephebes of Apollodoros

78 bc

79/8 bc 3

SEG XXII 110.61 4

ephebes of Apolexis

42 bc

45/4 bc 4

SEG XXII 111.35 9

ephebes of Polycharmos

42 bc

43/2 bc

5

IG II2 1041.27 9

ephebes of Menandros

34 bc

36/5 bc 6

IG II2 1043.52 4

1 2 3

4

5

6

]

Crown of kosmetes announced

▲

Tracy 1990: 213. Tracy 1990: 197 8; cf. Perrin Saminadayar 2007: 242 with note 1. Raubitschek 1951: 49 50; Follet 1988: 24 5; Habicht 1997: 311 note 49; cf. Perrin Saminadayar 2004: 90; contra: Mattingly 1979: 166 7. Reinmuth 1966: 94 5; cf. Meritt and Trail 1974: 222; contra: Kallet Marx and Stroud 1997: 178 81; Schmalz 2009: 11 12; Athenian Onomasticon s.v. Ἀπόληξις of Athens, 24/3 bc which updates LGPN II s.v. Ἀπόληξις of Oion 19. Since the instructors who trained the ephebes include a man from Myrrhinous and the hoplomachos in IG II2 1041 is Metrodoros of Myrrhinous, I am deeply sceptical that SEG XXIII 111 can really date to c. 20 bc, as the new orthodoxy demands; cf. SEG XXII 111.39 with IG II2 1041.21 2; on the instructors, see Reinmuth 1965: 267 72. Discussions of this inscription need to situate it within the history of the ephebeia in the first century; cf. Perrin Saminadayar 2004: 90 4. The archonship of Polycharmos is now dated to 44/3 bc by Sean Byrne; see Athenian Onomasticon s.v. Πολύχαρμος I of Azenia, m. i bc, which updates LGPN II s.v. Πολύχαρμος 8. Byrne 2003: 521.

456

Tables

Table 7.2 Foreign benefactors of the city Date of festival

Date of inscription

Spartokos, Pairisades and Apollonios, sons of Leukon, of the Kimmerian Bosporos

346 bc 1

347/6 bc

IG II3.1 298.20 39, 66 8

Prytanis, son of Astyleides, of Karystos

222 bc

225/4 bc

IG II3.1 1147.31 8

c. 210 bc?

IG II3.1 1218.9 14

Name of individual

(name not preserved)

Reference

2

194 bc

196/5 bc

Ale[x

186 bc

188/7 bc

IG II3.1 1278.10 14

Ptolemy, the son of Ptolemy, of [ ]3

169 134 bc

IG II2 983.2 4

(name not preserved)

148 134 bc 4

IG II2 966.17 23

Date of festival

Date of inscription

Reference

City of Lamia

250 bc

251/0 bc

Agora XVI 208.22 9 = IG II3.1 997.22 9

City of Ephesos

222 or 218 bc

224/3 222/ 1 bc

IG II3.1 1150.7 11

City of Antioch of the Chrysaoreans (Alabanda)

198 bc?

202/1 bc?

IG II3.1 1178.14 18

2

3 4

▲

IG II .1 1258.23 7, 31 5 = I.Delos 1497bis.b10 14, 18 22

Name of city

1

▲

3

King Pharnakes and Queen Nysa of Pontos ]

Granted citizenship

Granted citizenship

▲

These crowns were a recurring honour, which was first announced at the festival of 346 bc. Contra: Ghiţă 2011. His date of 160(/59) will not fit all the Attic epigraphical evidence for the archonship of Tychandros (and his predecessor Sositeles), an issue which he does not address. On his identity, see Habicht 1992: 81 2. See Ameling, Bringmann and Schmidt Dounas 1995: 68 9.

Bibliography

Editions of Texts Bekker, I. (ed.) 1814. Anecdota Graeca I: Lexica Segueriana. Berlin. Bergk, T. 1882. Poetae lyrici Graeci III: Poetas melicos continens, 4th ed. Leipzig. Chambers, M. (ed.) 1994. Aristoteles: Athenaion Politeia, corr. ed. Stuttgart. Colonna, A. 1951. Himerii declamationes et orationes cum deperditarum fragmen tis. Rome. Conomis, N. C. 1970. Lycurgi oratio in Leocratem cum ceterarum Lycurgi oratio num fragmentis. Leipzig. Cunningham, I. C. (ed.) 2003. Synagoge. Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων: Texts of the Original Version and of MS. B. Berlin. Davies, M., and Finglass, P. J. (eds.) 2014. Stesichorus: The Poems, Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Cambridge. Dindorf, W. (ed.) 1829. Aristides I III. Leipzig. Dindorf, W. (ed.) 1863. Scholia Graeca in Euripidis tragoedias, ex codicibus aucta et emendata I. Oxford. Drachmann, A. B. (ed.) 1910. Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina II: Scholia in Pythionicas. Leipzig. Erbse, H. 1950. Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika. Abhandlungen der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philosophisch historische Klasse, 1949 no. 2. Berlin. Fisher, K. T. 1906. Diodori Bibliotheca historica V, 3rd ed. Leipzig. Fortenbaugh, W. W., Huby, P. M., Sharples, R. W., Gutas, D., with Barker, A. D., Keaney, J. J., Mirhady, D. C., Sedley, D., and Sollenberger, M. G. (eds. and trans.) 1992. Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for His Life, Writings, Thought and Influence II: Psychology, Human Physiology, Living Creatures, Botany, Ethics, Religion, Politics, Rhetoric and Poetics, Music, Miscellanea. Leiden. Giannantoni, G. 1990. Socratis et Socraticorum reliquiae collegit, disposuit, appa ratibus notisque instruxit II. Naples. Helm, R. (ed.) 1956. Chronik des Hieronymus: Hieronymi Chronicon. Berlin. Jebb, S. (ed.) 1722 30. Aelii Aristidis Adrianensis opera omnia: Graece et Latine I II. Oxford.

457

458

Bibliography

Jones, C. P. (ed. and trans.) 2005. Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana I: Books I IV. Cambridge, MA. Kannicht, R. (ed.) 2004. Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta V: Euripides. Göttingen. Keil, B. (ed.) 1958. Aelii Aristidis Smyrnaei quae supersunt omnia II: Orationes XVII LIII continens, 2nd ed. Berlin. Lenz, F. W., and Behr, C. A. (eds.) 1976 80. P. Aelii Aristidis opera quae exstant omnia I: Orationes I XVI complectens. Leiden. Maehler, H. (ed.) 1987. Pindari carmina cum fragmentis I: Epinicia. Leipzig. Nauck, A., with Snell, B., (eds.) 1964. Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, reprint ed. with supplement. Hildesheim. Pàmias, J., and Geus, K. (eds. and trans.) 2007. Eratosthenes: Sternsagen (Catasterismi), herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert. Oberhaid. Pàmias i Massana, J. (ed.) and Zucker, A. (trans.) 2013. Ératosthène de Cyrène: Catastérismes. Paris. Pfeiffer, R. (ed.) 1949. Callimachus I: Fragmenta. Oxford. Robert, C. (ed.) 1963. Eratosthenis Catasterismorum reliquae, 2nd ed. Berlin. Rose, V. 1886. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. Leipzig. Sakkélion, I. 1877. ‘Ἐκ τῶν ἀνεκδότων τῆς πατμιακῆς βιβλιοθήκης: Scholies de Démosthène et d’Eschine d’après un manuscrit inédit de Patmos’, BCH 1: 1 16, 137 55. Schoene, A. (ed.) 1967. Eusebi Chronicoum libri duo II, reprint ed. Dublin. Schwartz, E. (ed.) 1887. Scholia in Euripidem I: Scholia in Hecubam, Orestem, Phoenissas. Berlin. Szegedy Maszak, A. 1981. The Nomoi of Theophrastus. New York. Wehrli, F. 1949. Die Schule des Aristoteles IV: Demetrios von Phaleron. Basel. Wilson, N. G. (ed.) 2007a. Aristophanis fabulae II. Oxford. Zintzen, C. (ed.) 1967. Damascii vitae Isidori reliquiae edidit adnotationibusque instruxit. Hildesheim.

Scholarly Studies Abrams, D., and Hogg, M. A. 2004. ‘Collective identity: group membership and self conception’, in Brewer and Hewstone 2004: 147 81. Albizzati, C. 1925 39. Vasi antichi dipinti del Vaticano I. Rome. Alcock, S. E. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscapes, Monuments and Memories. Cambridge. Aleshire, S. B., and Lambert, S. D. 2003. ‘Making the peplos for Athena: a new edition of IG II2 1060 + IG II2 1036’, ZPE 142: 65 86. Allan, W. (trans.) 2001. Euripides: The Children of Heracles, with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Warminster.

Bibliography Amandry, P. 1980. ‘Sur les concours argiens’, in Études argiennes. BCH Supplement 6. Athens: 211 53. Ameling, W. 1983. Herodes Atticus I II. Hildesheim. Ameling, W., Bringmann, K., and Schmidt Dounas, B. 1995. Schenkungen helle nistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer I: Zeugnisse und Kommentare, series eds. K. Bringmann and H. von Steuben. Berlin. Anderson, B. 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 2nd ed. rev. London. Anderson, Graham. 1993. The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire. London. Anderson, Greg. 2003. The Athenian Experiment: Building an Imagined Political Community in Ancient Attica, 508 490 bc. Ann Arbor, MI. Aneziri, S. 2003. Die Vereine der dionysischen Techniten im Kontext der hellenis tischen Gesellschaft: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Organisation und Wirkung der hellenistischen Technitenvereine. Historia Einzelschriften 163. Stuttgart. Aneziri, S. 2014. ‘Greek strategies of adaption to the Roman world: the case of the contests’, Mnemosyne 67: 423 42. Anghelina, C. 2017. ‘Athena’s birth on the night of the dark moon’, JHS 137: 175 83. Badoud, N., Fincker, M., and Moretti, J. C. 2015 16. ‘Les monuments érigés à Délos et à Athènes en l’honneur de Ménodôros, pancratiaste et lutteur’, BCH 139 40: 345 416. Bakewell, G. W. 1997. ‘Μετοικία in the Supplices of Aeschylus’, ClAnt 16: 209 28. Bakewell, G. 1999. ‘Lysias 12 and Lysias 31: metics and Athenian citizenship in the aftermath of the Thirty’, GRBS 40: 5 22. Baltzly, D., and Share, M. (trans.) 2018. Hermias: On Plato Phaedrus 227A 245E. London. Baltzly, D., and Tarrant, H. 2007. ‘General introduction to the Commentary’, in Proclus: Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus I: Book I: Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis, Translated with Introduction and Notes, trans. H. Tarrant. Cambridge: 1 20. Bardani, V. N., and Tracy, S. V. (eds.) 2012. Inscriptiones Graecae II/III3: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Pars I: Leges et decreta, Fasciculus V: Leges et decreta annorum 229/8 168/7. Berlin. Barnes, T. D. 1987. ‘Himerius and the fourth century’, CPh 82: 206 25. Barrett, W. S. 1978. ‘The Oligaithidai and their victories (Pindar, Olympian 13; SLG 399, 340)’, in Dionysiaca: Nine Studies in Greek Poetry by Former Pupils Presented to Sir Denys Page on His Seventieth Birthday, eds. R. D. Dawe, J. Diggle and P. E. Easterling. Cambridge: 1 20. Barringer, J. M. 2003. ‘Panathenaic games and Panathenaic amphorae under Macedonian rule’, in Palagia and Tracy 2003: 243 56.

459

460

Bibliography Barth, F. 1969. ‘Introduction’, in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference, ed. F. Barth. Bergen: 9 38. Bayliss, A. J. 2011. After Demosthenes: The Politics of Early Hellenistic Athens. London. Beazley, J. D. 1956. Attic Black Figure Vase Painters. Oxford. Beazley, J. D. 1971. Paralipomena: Additions to Attic Black Figure Vase Painters and Attic Red Figure Vase Painters. Oxford. Beazley, J. D. 1986. The Development of Attic Black Figure, rev. ed. Berkeley. Behr, C. A. (trans.) 1973. Aristides I: Panathenaic Oration and In Defence of Oratory, Text and Translation. Cambridge, MA. Belayche, N. 2005. ‘Realia versus leges? Les sacrifices de la religion d’État au IVe siècle’, in Georgoudi, Koch Piettre and Schmidt 2005: 343 70. Bélis, A. 1995. ‘Cithares, citharistes et citharôdes en Grèce’, CRAI: 1025 65. Bell, D. 1989. ‘The horse race (κέλης) in ancient Greece from the pre classical period to the first century bc’, Stadion 15: 167 90. Bendlin, A. 2000. ‘Looking beyond the civic compromise: religious pluralism in late republican Rome’, in Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy: Evidence and Experience, eds. E. Bispham and C. Smith, Edinburgh: 115 35. Bennett, C. 2011. Alexandria and the Moon: An Investigation into the Lunar Macedonian Calendar of Ptolemaic Egypt. Studia Hellenistica 52. Leuven. Bentz, M. 1998. Panathenäische Preisamphoren: Eine athenische Vasengattung und ihre Funktion vom 6. 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. AK Supplement 18. Basel. Bentz, M. 2001. ‘Appendix 1: Liste der schwarzfigurigen Pseudo Panathenäischen Preisamphoren’, in Bentz and Eschbach 2001: 177 95. Bentz, M. 2007. ‘Torch race and vase painting’, in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007: 73 80. Bentz, M., and Eschbach, N. (eds.) 2001. Panathenaïka: Symposion zu den Panathenäischen Preisamphoren, Rauischholzhausen 25.11 29.11.1998. Mainz. Bentz, M., and Kratzmüller, B. 2001. ‘Eine neue Apene Darstellung’, in Bentz and Eschbach 2001: 73 4. Bérard, C. 1974. Anodoi: Essai sur l’imagerie des passages chthoniens. Rome. Berger, E. (ed.) 1984. Parthenon Kongreß Basel: Referate und Berichte 4. bis 8. April 1982. Mainz. Berger, E., and Gisler Huwiler, M. 1996. Der Parthenon in Basel: Dokumentation zum Fries. Studien der Skulpturhalle Basel 3. Mainz. Beschi, L. 1984. ‘Il fregio del Partenone: una proposta di lettura’, RAL ser. 8, 39: 173 95. Blanshard, A. J. L. 2010. ‘War in the law court: some Athenian discussions’, in Pritchard 2010: 203 24. Blok, J. 2017. Citizenship in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Boardman, J. 1984. ‘The Parthenon frieze’, in Berger 1984: 210 15.

Bibliography

Boedeker, D. 1984. Descent from Heaven: Images of Dew in Greek Poetry and Religion. Chico, CA. Boedeker, D., and Raaflaub, K. A. (eds.) 1998. Democracy, Empire and the Arts in Fifth Century Athens. Cambridge, MA. Boegehold, A. L., and Scafuro, A. C., (eds.) 1994. Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology. Baltimore. Bommas, M. 2011. ‘Introduction’, in Cultural Memory and Identity in Ancient Societies, ed. M. Bommas. London: 1 9. Borg, B. E. (ed.) 2004. Paideia: The World of the Second Sophistic. Berlin. Borg, B. E. 2011. ‘Who cared about Greek identity? Athens in the first century bce’, in Schmitz and Wiater 2011: 213 34. Borthwick, E. K. 1969. ‘Two notes on Athena as protectress’, Hermes 97: 385 91. Borthwick, E. K. 1970. ‘P.Oxy 2738: Athena and the Pyrrhic dance’, Hermes 98: 318 31. Bowen, A. J. (trans.) 1998. Xenophon: Symposium, with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Warminster. Bowersock, G. W. 1966. ‘Pseudo Xenophon’, HSPh 71: 33 55. Bowersock, G. W. 1969. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford. Bowie, A. M. 1993. Aristophanes: Myth, Ritual and Comedy. Cambridge. Bowie, E. 2008. ‘Literary milieux’, in The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel, ed. T. Whitmarsh. Cambridge: 17 38. Bowra, C. M. 1964. Pindar. Oxford. Bradbury, S. 1995. ‘Julian’s pagan revival and the decline of blood sacrifice’, Phoenix 49: 331 56. Brandt, J. R. 1978. ‘Archaeologica Panathenaica I: Panathenaic prize amphorae from the sixth century bc’, AAAH 8: 1 23. Brandt, J. R. 2001. ‘Archaeologica Panathenaica II: Athena, Erechtheus, Peisistratos and the Panathenaic festival’, in Ceramics in Context: Proceedings of the Internordic Colloquium on Ancient Pottery Held at Stockholm, 13 15 June 1997, ed. C. Scheffer. Stockholm: 103 13. Brandt, J. R. 2012. ‘Content and form: some considerations on Greek festivals and archaeology’, in Brandt and Iddeng 2012: 139 98. Brandt, J. R., and Iddeng, J. W. (eds.) 2012. Greek and Roman Festivals: Content, Meaning and Practice. Oxford. Brélaz, C. 2005. La sécurité publique en Asie Mineure sous le Principat (Ier IIIème s. ap. J. C.): Institutions municipales et institutions impériales dans l’Orient romain. Basel. Brélaz, C. 2008. ‘L’adieu aux armes: la defense de la cité grecque dans l’empire romain pacifié’, in Sécurité collective et ordre public dans les sociétés anciennes, eds. C. Brélaz and P. Ducrey. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 44. Geneva: 155 96. Brelich, A. 1969. Paides e Parthenoi I. Incunabula Graeca 36. Rome.

461

462

Bibliography

Bremmer, J. N. 1999. Greek Religion. Greece and Rome New Surveys 24, 2nd ed. Oxford. Bremmer, J. 2010. ‘Manteis, magic, mysteries and mythography: messy margins of polis religion’, Kernos 23: 13 35. Bremmer, J. N. 2014. Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World. Berlin. Brewer, M. B. 2001. ‘The many faces of social identity: implications for political psychology’, Political Psychology 22: 115 25. Brewer, M. B., and Hewstone, M. (eds.) 2004. Self and Social Identity. Malden, MA. Brouskari, M. S. 1974. The Acropolis Museum: A Descriptive Catalogue. Athens. Bruit Zaidman, L., and Schmitt Pantel, P. 1992. Religion in the Ancient Greek City. Cambridge. Brulé, P. 1988. La fille d’Athènes: la religion des filles à Athènes à l’époque classique: mythes, cultes et société. Paris. Brulé, P. 1996. ‘La cité en ses composantes: remarques sur les sacrifices et la procession des Panathénées’, Kernos 9: 37 63. Brunt, P. A. 1975. ‘Did imperial Rome disarm her subjects?’, Phoenix 29: 260 70. Bugh, G. R. 1988. The Horsemen of Athens. Princeton. Bugh, G. R. 1990. ‘The Theseia in late Hellenistic Athens’, ZPE 83: 20 37. Bugh, G. R. 2013. ‘Democracy in the Hellenistic world’, in Belonging and Isolation in the Hellenistic World, eds. S. L. Ager and R. A. Faber. Phoenix Supplement 51. Toronto: 111 27. Bundrick, S. D. 2005. Music and Image in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Burckhardt, L. A. 1996. Bürger und Soldaten: Aspekte des politischen und militärischen Rolle athenischer Bürger im Kriegswesen des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Historia Einzelschriften 101. Stuttgart. Burke, P. J., and Stets, J. E. 2009. Identity Theory. Oxford. Burkert, W. 1983. Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Berkeley. Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical. Oxford. Buxton, R. (ed.) 2000. Oxford Readings in Greek Religion. Oxford. Byrne, S. 1995. ‘IG II2 1095 and the Delia of 98/97 bc: a document about the Athenian politician Medeios’, ZPE 109: 55 61. Byrne, S. G. 2003. Roman Citizens of Athens. Studia Hellenistica 40. Leuven. Byrne, S. G. 2006 7. ‘Four Athenian archons of the third century bc’, MedArch 19/ 20: 169 79. Byrne, S. G. 2010. ‘The Athenian damnatio memoriae of the Antigonids in 200 bc’, in Philathenaios: Studies in Honour of Michael J. Osborne, eds. A. Tamis, C. J. Mackie and S. G. Byrne. Athens: 157 77. Byrne, S. G. nd. Athenian Onomasticon. www.seangb.org. Cabanes, P. 1988. ‘Les concours des Naia de Dodone’, Nikephoros 1: 49 84. Cadoux, T. J. 1948. ‘The Athenian archons from Kreon to Hypsichides’, JHS 68: 70 123.

Bibliography Calabi Limentani, I. 1976. ‘Armodio e Aristogitone gli uccisi dal tiranno’, Acme 29: 9 27. Calame, C. 1997. Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece: Their Morphology, Religious Role and Social Function. Lanham, MD. Calhoun, C. 1994a. ‘Social theory and the politics of identity’, in Calhoun 1994c: 9 36. Calhoun, C. 1994b. ‘Nationalism and civil society: democracy, diversity and self determination’, in Calhoun 1994c: 304 35. Calhoun. C. (ed.) 1994c. Social Theory and the Politics of Identity. Cambridge, MA. Cameron, A. 2004. Greek Mythography in the Roman World. Oxford. Cameron, A. 2011. The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford. Camia, F. 2011. Theoi Sebastoi: Il culto degli imperatori romani in Grecia (Provincia Achaia) nel secondo secolo d.C. Athens. Camp, II, J. Mck. 2015. ‘Excavations in the Athenian Agora, 2008 2012’, Hesperia 84: 467 513. Canali De Rossi, F. 2011. Hippiká. Corse di cavalli e di carri in Grecia, Etruria e Roma, le radici classiche della moderna competizione sportiva I: La gara delle quadrighe nel mondo greco. Nikephoros Beihefte 18. Hildesheim. Canevaro, M. 2010 ‘The decree awarding citizenship to the Plataeans ([Dem.] 59.104)’, GRBS 50: 337 69. Canevaro, M., and Harris, E. M. 2012. ‘The documents in Andocides’ On the Mysteries’, CQ 62: 98 129. Carawan, E. 2017. ‘Decrees in Andocides’ On the Mysteries and “latent fragments” from Craterus’, CQ 67: 400 21. Carpenter, T. H. 1991. Art and Myth in Ancient Greece. London. Carpenter, T. H., with Mannack, T., and Mendonça, M. 1989. Beazley Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV2 and Paralipomena, 2nd ed. Oxford. Carriére, J. C. 1991. ‘Notice’, in La Bibliothèque d’Apollodore, traduite, annotée et commentée, trans. J. C. Carriére and B. Massonie. Paris. Castrén, P. 1989. ‘The post Herulian revival of Athens’, in The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, eds. S. Walker and A. Cameron. BICS Supplement 55. London: 45 9. Castrén, P. 1994a. ‘General aspects of life in post Herulian Athens’, in Castrén 1994b: 1 14. Castrén, P. (ed.) 1994b. Post Herulian Athens: Aspects of Life and Culture in Athens ad 267 529. Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 1. Helsinki. Ceccarelli, P. 1998. La pirrica nell’antichità greco romano: studi sulla danza armata. Rome. Ceccarelli, P. 2004. ‘Dancing the pyrrhichē in Athens’, in Music and the Muses: The Culture of ‘Mousikē’ in the Classical Athenian City, eds. P. Murray and P. Wilson. Oxford: 91 117.

463

464

Bibliography Ceccarelli, P. 2013. ‘Circular choruses and the dithyramb in the classical and Hellenistic periods: a problem of definition’, in Kowalzig and Wilson 2013b: 153 70. Cerulo, K. A. 1997. ‘Identity construction: new issues, new directions’, Annual Review of Sociology 23: 385 407. Chamay, J. 2001. ‘Fragments d’amphore panathénaïque avec signature de potier’, in Bentz and Eschbach 2001: 7 9. Chaniotis, A. 1995. ‘Sich selbst feiern? Städtische Feste des Hellenismus im Spannungsfeld von Religion und Politik’, in Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus: Kolloquium, München, 24. bis 26. Juni 1993, eds. M. Wörrle and P. Zanker. Munich: 147 72. Chaniotis, A. 2005. War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History. Malden, MA. Chankowski, A. S. 2010. L’éphébie hellenistique: Étude d’une institution civique dans les cités grecques des îles de la Mer Égée et de l’Asie Mineure. Paris. Chankowski, A. S. 2014. ‘L’éphebie athénienne antérieure à la réforme d’Epikratès: à propos de Reinmuth, Eph.Inscr. 1 et de la chronologie des premières inscriptions éphébiques’, BCH 138: 15 78. Chase, G. H., and Pease, M. Z. 1942. CVA United States of America: Fog Museum and Gallatin Collections. Cambridge, MA. Christ, M. R. 2001. ‘Conscription of hoplites in classical Athens’, CQ 51: 398 422. Christ, M. R. 2006. The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Christiansen, J. 1984. ‘Did the Kleophon Painter make Panathenaics?’, in Ancient Greek and Related Pottery: Proceedings of the International Vase Symposium in Amsterdam, 12 15 April 1984, ed. H. A. G. Brijder. Allard Pierson Series 5. Amsterdam: 144 8. Clavaud, R. (ed. and trans.) 1974. Démosthène: Discours d’apparat (Épitaphios, Éroticos). Paris. Clinton, K. 1988. ‘Sacrifice at the Eleusinian Mysteries’, in Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, eds. R. Hägg, N. Marinatos and G. C. Nordquist. Stockholm: 69 80. Clinton, K. 2008. Eleusis: The Inscriptions on Stone. Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme II: Commentary. Athens. Cody, J. M. 1983. ‘Catalogue’, in Wealth of the Ancient World: The Nelson Bunker Hunt and William Herbert Hunt Collections, ed. J. F. Tomkins. Fort Worth: 45 83. Cohen, A. P. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. London. Cohen, E. E. 2000. The Athenian Nation. Princeton. Collard, C. (trans.) 1991. Euripides: Hecuba, with Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Warminster. Condor, S. 1996. ‘Social identity and time’, in W. P. Robinson 1996: 285 315.

Bibliography Connelly, J. B. 1996. ‘Parthenon and parthenoi: a mythological interpretation of the Parthenon frieze’, AJA 100: 53 80. Connelly, J. B. 2007. Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece. Princeton. Connelly, J. B. 2014. The Parthenon Enigma: A Journey into Legend. New York. Connor, W. R. 2000. ‘Tribes, festivals and processions: civic ceremonial and political manipulations in archaic Greece’, in Buxton 2000: 56 75. Cook, E. F. 1995. The Odyssey in Athens: Myths of Cultural Origins. Ithaca. Corbett, P. E. 1960. ‘The Burgon and Blacas tombs’, JHS 80: 52 60. Couvenhes, J. C. 1998. ‘Le statège Derkylos, fils d’Autoklès d’Hagnous et l’éducation des paides à Éleusis’, CCG 9: 49 69. Cropp, M. J. (trans.) 2000. Euripides: Iphigenia in Tauris, with Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Warminster. Crowther, N. B. 1985. ‘Male beauty contests in Greece: the euandria and euexia’, AC 54: 285 91. Crowther, N. B. 1991. ‘The apobates reconsidered (Demosthenes lxi 23 9)’, JHS 111: 174 6. Crowther, N. B. 1992. ‘Slaves and Greek athletics’, QUCC 40: 35 42. Crowther, N. B. 1994. ‘Reflections on Greek equestrian events: violence and spectator attitudes’, Nikephoros 7: 121 33. Csapo, E. 2007. ‘The men who built the theatres: theatropolai, theatronai and arkhitektones’, in P. Wilson 2007b: 87 121. Csapo, E., and Wilson, P. 2014. ‘The finance and organisation of the Athenian theatre in the time of Eubulus and Lycurgus’, in Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century bc, eds. E. Csapo, H. R. Goette, J. R. Green and P. Wilson. Berlin: 393 424. Cunningham, I. C. (ed.) 2003. Synagoge. Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων: Texts of the Original Version and of MS. B. Berlin. D’Alessio, G. 2013. ‘“The name of the dithyramb”: diachronic and diatopic vari ations’, in Kowalzig and Wilson 2013b: 113 32. Davies, J. K. 1967. ‘Demosthenes on liturgies: a note’, JHS 87: 33 40. Davies, J. K. 1971. Athenian Propertied Families 600 300 bc. Oxford. Davison, J. A. 1958. ‘Notes on the Panathenaia’, JHS 78: 23 41. d’Ayala Valva, S. 1996. ‘La figura Nord *55 del fregio del Partenone’, AK 29: 5 13. Deacy, S. 2007. ‘“Famous Athens, divine polis”: the religious system of Athens’, in Ogden 2007: 221 35. Decker, W. 1995. Sport in der griechischen Antike: Vom minoischen Wettkampf bis zu den Olympischen Spielen. Munich. Della Bona, M. E. 2012. ‘Alcune osservazioni sul concetto di periodos nell’agonis tica ginnica e musicale’, Nikephoros 25: 115 42. Demargne, P. 1984. ‘Athena’, in LIMC II: Aphrodite Athena. Zurich: 955 1044. Demetriou, D. 2012. Negotiating Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean: The Archaic and Classical Greek Multiethnic Emporia. Cambridge.

465

466

Bibliography

Deshours, N. 2011. L’été indien de la religion civique: Étude sur les cultes civiques dans le monde égéen à l’époque hellénistique tardive. Bordeaux. Detienne, M. 1989a. ‘Culinary practices and the spirit of sacrifice’, in Detienne and Vernant 1989: 1 20. Detienne, M. 1989b. ‘The violence of wellborn ladies: women in the Thesmophoria’, in Detienne and Vernant 1989: 129 47. Detienne, M., and Vernant, J. P. (eds.) 1989. The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks. Chicago. Deubner, L. 1932. Attische Feste. Berlin. Develin, R. 1984. ‘From Panathenaia to Panathenaia’, ZPE 57: 133 8. Develin, R. 1989. Athenian Officials 684 321 bc. Cambridge. Dickey, E. 2007. Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica and Grammatical Treatises, from Their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. Oxford. Dillon, M. 2000. ‘Did parthenoi attend the Olympic games? Girls and women competing, spectating and carrying out cult roles at Greek religious festivals’, Hermes 128: 457 80. Dillon, M. 2002. Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion. London. Dinsmoor, W. B. 1931. The Archons of Athens. Cambridge, MA. Donnay, G. 1997. ‘L’arrhéphorie: initiation ou rite civique? Un cas d’école’, Kernos 10: 177 205. Dorandi, T. 1990. ‘Gli arconti nei papiri ercolanesi’, ZPE 84: 121 38. Dougherty, C., and Kurke, L. (eds.) 1993. Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Poetics. Cambridge. Dover, K. J. (ed.) 1968. Aristophanes: Clouds, Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford. Dover, K. (ed.) 1993. Aristophanes: Frogs, Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford. Dow, S. 1936. ‘Panathenaic amphorae from the Hellenistic period’, Hesperia 5: 50 8. Downes, W. E. D. 1904. ‘The offensive weapon in the pyrrhic’, CR 18: 101 6. Dunbar, N. (ed.) 1995. Aristophanes: Birds, Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford. Durand, J. L. 1989. ‘Greek animals: toward a topology of edible bodies’, in Detienne and Vernant 1989: 87 118. Edwards, G. R. 1957. ‘Panathenaics of Hellenistic and Roman times’, Hesperia 26: 320 49. Edwards, M. (ed. and trans.) 1995. Andocides, Edited with a Translation and Commentary. Greek Orators 4. Warminster. Eidinow, E. 2011. ‘Networks and narratives: a model for ancient Greek religion’, Kernos 24: 9 38. Eisenstadt, S. N. 2002. ‘The construction of collective identities and the continual reconstruction of primordiality’, in Malešević and Haugaard 2002: 33 87.

Bibliography

Ekroth, G. 2002. The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero Cults. Kernos Supplement 12. Liège. Ekroth, G. 2008. ‘Meat, man and god: on the division of the animal victim at Greek sacrifices’, in Μικρὸς ἱερομνήμων: μελέτης εἰς μνήμην Michael H. Jameson, eds. A. P. Matthaiou and I. Polinskaya. Athens: 259 90. Ekroth, G. 2012. ‘Pelops joins the party: transformations of a hero cult within the festival at Olympia’, in Brandt and Iddeng 2012: 95 137. Engelmann, H., and Merkelbach, R. 1972. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai I: Nr. 1 200. IGSK 1. Eriksen, T. H. 2010. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives, 3rd ed. London. Ermini, A. 1997. ‘Il “passo” di Armodio e il “passo” di Aristogitone: echi e riprese del gruppo dei Tirannicidi nella ciramica attica’, BA 101 2: 1 24. Eschbach, N. 1986. Statuen auf panathenäischen Preisamphoren des 4. Jhrs v. Chr. Mainz. Eschbach, N. 2007. ‘Panathenaic prize amphorae from the Kerameikos: some new aspects and results’, in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007: 91 100. Eschbach, N. 2016. ‘Disiderata Panathenaika I: ein ungewöhnlicher Fundkomplex Panathenäischer Preisamphoren aus Athen. Der Jahrgang des Archonten Polemon 312/1 v. Chr.’, JDAI 131: 171 234. Eschbach, N. 2017. Kerameikos XXI: Panathenäische Preisamphoren aus dem Kerameikos zu Athen. Wiesbaden. Farrington, A. 2012. Isthmionikai: A Catalogue of Isthmian Victors. Nikephoros Beihefte 21. Hildesheim. Fauconnier, B. 2016. ‘Athletes and artists in an expanding world: the development of the ecumenical associations of competitors in the first century bc’, in Athletics in the Hellenistic World, eds. C. Mann, S. Remijsen and S. Scharff 2016: 73 93. Fauconnier, B. 2017. ‘The organisation of synods of competitors in the Roman empire’, Historia 66: 442 67. Fehr, B. 2011. Becoming Good Democrats and Wives: Civic Education and Female Socialization on the Parthenon Frieze. Hephaistos: Kritische Zeitschrift zu Theorie und Praxis der Archäologie und angrenzender Gebiete. Zürich. Fisher, N. (trans.) 2001. Aeschines: Against Timarchos, Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford. Flensted Jensen, P., Nielsen, T. H., and Rubinstein, L. (eds.) 2000. Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on His Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000. Copenhagen. Follet, S. 1976. Athènes au IIe et au IIIe siècle: Études chronologiques et prosopo graphiques. Paris. Follet, S. 1988. ‘Éphèbes étrangers à Athènes: Romains, Milésiens, Chypriotes etc.’, CCEC 9: 19 32.

467

468

Bibliography Follet, S. 1998. ‘Chronologie attique et chronologie delphique (IIe s. a.C. Ier s. p. C.)’, Topoi (Lyon) 8: 243 60. Forbes, C. A. 1955. ‘Ancient athletic guilds’, CP 50: 238 52. Fornara, C. W. 1968. ‘The “tradition” about the murder of Hipparchus’, Historia 17: 400 24. Fornara, C. W. 1971. ‘Evidence for the date of Herodotus’ publication’, JHS 91: 25 34. Fornara, C. W., and Samons, II, L. J. 1991. Athens from Cleisthenes to Pericles. Berkeley. Forrest, W. G. 1970. ‘The date of the pseudo Xenophontic Athenaion Politeia’, Klio 52: 107 16. Fowden, G. 1988. ‘City and mountain in late Roman Attica’, JHS 108: 48 59. Fowden, G. 1998. ‘Polytheist religion and philosophy’, in The Cambridge Ancient History XIII: The Late Empire, ad 337 424, eds. A. Cameron and P. Garnsey. Cambridge: 538 60. Fowler, R. L. 2013. Early Greek Mythography II: Commentary. Oxford. Foxhall, L. 2007. Olive Cultivation in Ancient Greece: Seeking the Ancient Economy. Oxford. Frantz, A. 1971. Agora XX: The Church of the Holy Apostles. Princeton. Frantz, A. 1988. Agora XXIV: Late Antiquity: ad 267 700. Princeton. Frel, J. 1973. Panathenaic Prize Amphoras. Athens. Friedman, J. 1992. ‘The past in the future: history and the politics of identity’, American Anthropologist 94: 837 59. Frisch, P. 1988. ‘Die Klassifikation der παῖδες bei den griechischen Agonen’, ZPE 75: 179 85. Furley, W. D. 2007. ‘Prayers and hymns’, in Ogden 2007: 117 31. Garland, R. 1992. Introducing New Gods: The Politics of Athenian Religion. London. Gauthier, P. 1976. Un commentaire historique des Poroi de Xénophon. Geneva. Gauthier, P. 1982. ‘Notes sur trois décrets honorant des citoyens bienfaiteurs’, RPh 56: 215 31. Gauthier, P. 1985. Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe Ier siècle avant J. C.): Contribution à l’histoire des institutions. BCH Supplement 12. Athens. Geagan, D. J. 1967. The Athenian Constitution after Sulla. Hesperia Supplement 12. Princeton. Geagan, D. J. 1979. ‘Tiberius Claudius Novius, the hoplite generalship and the epimeleteia of the free city of Athens’, AJPh 100: 279 87. Geagan, D. J. 2011. Agora XVIII: Inscriptions: The Dedicatory Monuments. Princeton. Gebauer, J. 2002. Pompe und Thysia: Attische Tieropferdarstellungen auf schwarz und rotfigurigen Vasen. Eikon 7. Münster. Geer, R. M. (trans.) 1954. Diodorus of Sicily X: Books XIX.66 110 and XX. Cambridge, MA.

Bibliography

Georgoudi, S., Koch Piettre, R., and Schmidt, F. (eds.) 2005. La cuisine et l’autel: Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne. Turnhout. Gerson, J. M. 2001. ‘In between states: identity practices among German Jewish immigrants’, Political Psychology 22: 179 98. Geus, K. 2002. Eratosthenes von Kyrene: Studien zur hellenistischen Kultur und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Munich. Ghiţă, C. E. 2011. ‘Nysa a Seleucid princess in an Anatolian context’, in Seleucid Dissolution: The Sinking of the Anchor, eds. K. Erickson and G. Ramsey. Wiesbaden: 107 16. Giannakopoulos, N. 2013. ‘The treatment of the battle of Marathon in the literary tradition of the imperial period’, in Marathon the Day After: Symposium Proceedings, Delphi 2 4 July 2010, eds. K. Buraselis and E. Koulakiotis. Delphi: 185 99. Gill, D. 2001. ‘The decision to build the temple of Athena Nike: IG I3 35’, Historia 50: 257 78. Gleason, M. 2010. ‘Making space for bicultural identity: Herodes Atticus com memorates Regilla’, in Whitmarsh 2010b: 125 62. Goette, H. R. 2007a. ‘Choregic monuments and the Athenian democracy’, in P. Wilson 2007b: 122 49. Goette, H. R. 2007b. ‘“Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests’, in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007: 117 26. Goff, B. 2004. Citizen Bacchae: Women’s Ritual Practice in Ancient Greece. Berkeley. Golden, M. 1998. Sport and Society in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. Goldhill, S. 1990. ‘The Great Dionysia and civic ideology’, in Winkler and Zeitlin 1990: 97 129. Goldhill, S., 1994. ‘Representing democracy: women at the Great Dionysia’, in Osborne and Hornblower 1994: 347 69. Goldhill, S. 2000. ‘Civic ideology and the problem of difference: the politics of Aeschylean tragedy, once again’, JHS 120: 34 56. Goldhill, S. (ed.) 2001. Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire. Cambridge. Goldhill, S., and Osborne, R. (eds.) 1999. Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy. Cambridge. Gomme, A. W., Andrewes, A., and Dover, K. J. 1970. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides IV: Books V 25 VIII. Oxford. Graef, B., and Langlotz, E. 1925. Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen I. Berlin. Graf, F. 1996. ‘Pompai in Greece: some considerations about space and ritual in the Greek polis’, in The Role of Religion in the Early Greek Polis: Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, ed. R. Hägg. Stockholm: 55 65.

469

470

Bibliography

Graf, F. 2015. Roman Festivals in the Greek East: From the Early Empire to the Middle Byzantine Era. Cambridge. Graham, A. J. 1983. Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, 2nd corr. ed. Chicago. Gregory, J. 1999. Euripides: Hecuba. Introduction, Text and Commentary. Atlanta. Greifenhagen, A. 1935. ‘Attische schwarzfigurige Vasen im Akademischen Kunstmuseum zu Bonn’, AA: cols. 407 91. Griffin, J. 1998. ‘The social function of Attic tragedy’, CQ 48: 39 61. Griffith, M. 1995. ‘Brilliant dynasts: power and politics in the Oresteia’, ClAnt 14: 62 129. Grossberg, L. 1996. ‘Identity and cultural studies: is that all there is?’, in Hall and du Gay 1996: 87 107. Guarisco, D. 2001. ‘Comparare il comparabile: Artemide e i ritti di passagio: Brauronia, Mounichia, Orthia’, in L’arkteia di Brauron e i culti femminili: Materiali della giornata di approfondimento organizzata dal Seminario avanzato sul tema il politeismo promosso dall’insegnamento di storia delle religioni del mondo classico (A.A. 1999/2000) 5 luglio 2000, ed. D. M. Cosi. Bologna: 65 87. Gutzwiller, K. 2010. ‘Heroic epitaphs of the classical age: the Aristotelian Peplos and beyond’, in Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram, eds. M. Baumbach, A. Petrovic and I. Petrovic. Cambridge: 219 49. Habicht, C. 1982. Studien zur Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit. Hypomnemata 73. Göttingen. Habicht, C. 1988. ‘The eponymous archons of Athens from 159/58 to 141/40 bc’, Hesperia 57: 237 47. Habicht, C. 1992. ‘Athens and the Ptolemies’, ClAnt 11: 68 90. Habicht, C. 1996a. ‘Divine honours for King Antigonus Gonatas in Athens’, SCI 15: 131 4. Habicht, C. 1996b. ‘Neue Inschriften aus Kos’, ZPE 112: 83 94. Habicht, C. 1997. Athens from Alexander to Antony. Cambridge, MA. Habicht, C. 2003. ‘Athens after the Chremonidean War: some second thoughts’, in Palagia and Tracy 2003: 52 5. Hakkarainen, M. 1997. ‘Private wealth in the Athenian public sphere during the last classical and early Hellenistic period’, in Early Hellenistic Athens: Symptoms of a Change, ed. J. Frösén. Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 6. Helsinki: 1 32. Hall, J. M. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge. Hall, S. 1996. ‘Introduction: who needs “identity”?’, in Hall and du Gay 1996: 1 17. Hall, S., and du Gay, P. (eds.) 1996. Questions of Cultural Identity. London. Hamilton, R. 1996. ‘Panathenaic amphoras: the other side’, in Neils 1996b: 137 62. Handler, R. 1994. ‘Is “identity” a useful cross cultural concept?’, in Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity, ed. J. R. Gillis. Princeton: 27 40.

Bibliography Hansen, M. H. 2004. ‘Attika’, in Hansen and Nielsen 2004: 624 42. Hansen, M. H. 2015. ‘Is Patrokleides’ decree (Andoc. 1.77 79) a genuine docu ment?’, GRBS 55: 884 901. Hansen, M. H., and Nielsen, T. H. 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation. Oxford. Hansen, O. 1989. ‘On the site of Nea’, Eranos 87: 70 2. Harding, P. (trans.) 1994. Androtion and the Atthis: The Fragments Translated with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford. Harl, K. W. 1990. ‘Sacrifice and pagan belief in fifth and sixth century Byzantium’, P&P 128: 7 27. Harris, D., 1991. The Inventory Lists of the Parthenon Treasures, Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University. Harris, D. 1995. The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion. Oxford. Harris, E. M. 1988. ‘When was Aeschines born?’, CP 83: 211 14. Harris, E. M. 2013 14. ‘The authenticity of the document at Andocides, On the Mysteries 96 98’, Tekmeria 12: 121 53. Harris, H. A. 1964. Greek Athletics and Athletes. London. Harrison, E. B. 1984. ‘Time in the Parthenon frieze’, in Berger 1984: 230 4. Harrison, E. B. 1989. ‘Hellenic identity and Athenian identity in the fifth century bc’, in Cultural Differentiation and Cultural Identity in the Visual Arts, eds. S. Barnes and W. Melion. Studies in the History of Art 27. Washington, DC: 41 61. Harrison, E. B. 1996. ‘The web of history: a conservative reading of the Parthenon frieze’, in Neils 1996b: 198 214. Harrison, S. 2006. Fracturing Resemblances: Identity and Mimetic Conflict in Melanesia and the West. New York. Harrison, T. 2015. ‘Review article: beyond the polis? New approaches to Greek religion’, JHS 135: 165 80. Hayes, J. W. 1981. CVA Canada: Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto I: Attic Black Figure and Related Wares. Oxford. Haysom, M., and Wallensten, J. (eds.) 2011. Current Approaches to Religion in Ancient Greece: Papers Presented at a Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 17 19 April 2008. Stockholm. Hellström, P. 1965. Labraunda. Swedish Excavations and Researches II.1: Pottery of Classical and Later Date, Terracotta Lamps and Glass. Lund. Helly, B. 1973. Gonnoi II: Les inscriptions. Amsterdam. Henderson, J. 1990. ‘The demos and the comic competition’, in Winkler and Zeitlin 1990: 271 313. Henderson, J. 1991. The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, 2nd ed. Oxford. Henderson, J. 2003. ‘Demos, demagogue, tyrant in Attic old comedy’, in K. A. Morgan 2003: 155 79.

471

472

Bibliography

Henry, A. S. 1983. Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees. Hildesheim. Henry, A. S. 1996. ‘The hortatory intention in Athenian state decrees’, ZPE 112: 105 19. Herington, C. J. 1955. Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias: A Study in the Religion of Periclean Athens. Manchester. Hesk, J. 2000. Deception and Deceit in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Hoepfner, W., with Hamdorf, F. W., Frel, J. , Hönle, A. , Hübner, G. , Mortzos, C. , and Touratsoglou, J. 1976. Kerameikos X: Das Pompeion und seine Nachfolgerbauten. Berlin. Hoff, M. C. 1997. ‘Laceratae Athenae: Sulla’s siege of Athens in 87/6 bc and its aftermath’, in Hoff and Rotroff 1997: 33 51. Hoff, M. C., and Rotroff, S. I. (eds.) 1997. The Romanization of Athens: Proceedings of an International Conference Held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996). Oxford. Hogg, M. A. 2004. ‘Social categorization, depersonalization and group behaviour’, in Brewer and Hewstone 2004: 203 31. Hogg, M. A. 2006. ‘Social identity theory’, in Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, ed. P. J. Burke. Stanford: 111 36. Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., and White, K. M. 1995. ‘A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory’, Social Psychology Quarterly 58.4: 255 69. Holloway, R. R. 1966. ‘The archaic Acropolis and the Parthenon frieze’, ABull 48: 223 6. Hornblower, S. 2000. ‘The Old Oligarch (pseudo Xenophon’s Athenaion Politeia) and Thucydides: a fourth century date for the Old Oligarch?’, in Flensted Jensen, Nielsen and Rubinstein 2000: 363 84. Hornblower, S. 2008. A Commentary on Thucydides III: Books 5.25 8.109. Oxford. Hose, M. 1993. ‘Kratinos und der Bau des Perikleischen Odeions’, Philologus 137: 3 11. Howard, J. A. 2000. ‘Social psychology of identities’, Annual Review of Sociology 26: 367 93. Huddy, L. 2001. ‘From social to political identity: a critical examination of social identity theory’, Political Psychology 22: 127 56. Humphreys, S. C. 2004. The Strangeness of Gods: Historical Perspectives on the Interpretation of Athenian Religion. Oxford. Humphreys, S. C. 2007. ‘Notes on Attic prosopography’, ZPE 160: 65 75. Hurwit, J. M. 1999. The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present. Cambridge. Iddeng, J. W. 2012. ‘What is a Graeco Roman festival?’, in Brandt and Iddeng 2012: 11 37. Ieranò, G. 1997. Il ditirambo di Dioniso: Le testimonianze antiche. Pisa.

Bibliography

Jacoby, F. 1923 58. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker I III. Berlin and Leiden. Jacoby, F. 1949. Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens. Oxford. Jameson, M. H. 1972. Review of R. Meiggs and D. Lewis (eds.), A Section of Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford, 1969, AJPh 93: 474 80. Jameson, M. H. 1998a. ‘Religion in Athenian democracy’, in Democracy 2500? Questions and Challenges, eds. I. Morris and K. A. Raaflaub. AIA Colloquia and Conference Papers 2. Dubuque, IA: 171 95. Jameson, M. H. 1998b. ‘Sacrifice and animal husbandry in classical Greece’, in Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, ed. C. R. Whittaker. PCPS Supplement 14. Cambridge: 87 119. Jameson, M. H. 1999. ‘The spectacular and the obscure in Athenian religion’, in Goldhill and Osborne 1999: 321 40. Janell, W. 1927. ‘Chronicon Olympicum’, Klio 21: 344 9. Jenkins, I. 1994. The Parthenon Frieze. London. Jenkins, R. 2002. ‘Different societies? Different cultures? What are human collect ivities?’, in Malešević and Haugaard 2002: 12 32. Jenkins, R. 2008. Social Identity, 3rd ed. London. Jim, T. S. F. 2014. Sharing with the Gods: Aparchai and Dekatai in Ancient Greece. Oxford. Johnston, A. 2007. ‘Panathenaic amphorae, again’, ZPE 161: 101 4. Jones, C. P. (ed. and trans.) 2005. Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana I: Books I IV. Cambridge, MA. Kallet, L. 2003. ‘Dēmos tyrannos: wealth, power and economic patronage’, in K. A. Morgan 2003: 117 53. Kallet Marx, R. M., and Stroud, R. S. 1997. ‘Two Athenian decrees concerning Lemnos of the late first century bc’, Chiron 27: 155 91. Kaltsas, N. 2002. Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Los Angeles. Kantiréa, M. 2007. Les dieux et les dieux Augustes. Le culte impérial en Grèce sous les Julio Claudiens et les Flaviens: études épigraphiques et archéologiques. Athens. Kapparis, K. 1995. ‘The Athenian decree for the naturalisation of the Plataeans’, GRBS 36: 359 78. Karila Cohen, K. 2007. ‘La Pythaïde et la socialisation des élites athéniennes aux IIe et Ier siècles avant notre ère’, in Individus, groupes et politique à Athènes de Solon à Mithridate: Actes du colloque international, Tours 7 et 8 Mars 2005, eds. J. C. Couvenhes and S. Milanezi. Tours: 365 83. Karoglou, K. 2010. Attic Pinakes: Votive Images in Clay. Oxford. Kassel, R., and Austin, C. (eds.) 1983 . Poetae Comici Graeci. Berlin. Kavoulaki, A. 1999. ‘Processional performance and the democratic polis’, in Goldhill and Osborne 1999: 293 320. Kearns, E. 1989. The Heroes of Attica. BICS Supplement 57. London.

473

474

Bibliography Keesling, C. M. 2007. ‘Early Hellenistic portrait statues on the Athenian Acropolis: survival, reuse, transformation’, in Schultz and von den Hoff 2007: 141 60. Kennedy, R. F. 2014. Immigrant Women in Athens: Gender, Ethnicity and Citizenship in the Classical City. New York. Kennell, N. M. 1988. ‘ΝΕΡΩΝ ΠΕΡΙΟΔΟΝΙΚΗΣ’, AJPh 109: 239 51. Kennell, N. M. 1999. ‘The age categories and chronology in the Hellenistic Theseia’, Phoenix 53: 249 62. Kennell, N. M. 2009a. Review of E. Perrin Saminadayar, Éducation, culture et société à Athènes. Les acteurs de la vie culturelle athénienne (229 88): Un tout petit monde, Paris, 2007, BMCR 2009.09.43. bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/ 2009 09 43. Kennell, N. M. 2009b. ‘The Greek ephebate in the Roman period’, International Journal of the History of Sport 26: 323 42. Kennell, N. 2013. ‘Age class societies in ancient Greece?’, AncSoc 43: 1 73. Kephalidou, E. 1996. Νικητής: Εἰκονογραφικὴ μελέτη τοῦ ἀρχαίου ἐλληνικοῦ ἀθλητισμοῦ. Thessalonike. Kephalidou, E. 2001. ‘New Panathenaic prize amphoras from Aiani in Upper Macedonia’, in Bentz and Eschbach 2001: 11 17. Kindt, J. 2012. Rethinking Greek Religion. Cambridge. King, N. Q. 1961. The Emperor Theodosius and the Establishment of Christianity. London. Klee, T. 1918. Zur Geschichte der gymnischen Agone an griechischen Festen. Leipzig. Knoepfler, D. 1988. ‘Sur les traces de l’Artémision d’Amarynthos près d’Érétrie’, CRAI: 382 21. Knoepfler, D. 2001. Eretria XI: Décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté. Lausanne. Knoepfler, D. 2010. ‘L’occupation d’Oropos par Athènes au IVe siècle avant J.C.: une clérouquie dissimulée?’, ASAA 88, series III, 10: 439 54. Knoepfler, D. 2015a. ‘Τὰ τριάκοντα ἔτη: observations sur le texte, le contenu et la date du décret d’Athènes pour Képhisodôros’, in Matthaiou and Papazarkadas 2015: 257 90. Knoepfler, D. 2015b. ‘L’éphébie athénienne comme préparation à la guerre du IVe au IIe siècle av. J. C.’, in La Grèce et la guerre: Actes, eds. P. Contamine, J. Jouanna and M. Zink. Paris: 59 104. Knoepfler, D. 2016. ‘Le décret d’Athènes sur la kréanomia des Petites Panathénées: un modèle politique pour le partage des viandes entre les dèmes attiques’, JS: 147 211. Knust, J. W., and Várhelyi, Z. (eds.) 2011. Ancient Mediterranean Sacrifice. Oxford. Konstan, D., and Saïd, S. (eds.) 2006. Greeks on Greekness: Viewing the Greek Past under the Roman Empire. CCJ Supplement 29. Cambridge. Kontoleon, N. M. 1937. ‘Ἑλληνιστικοὶ παναθηναϊκοὶ ἀμφορεῖς τοῦ Μουσείου Μυκόνου’, AEph: 576 89.

Bibliography Kontoleon, N. M. 1964. ‘Zu den literarischen ἀναφραγαί’, in Akte des IV. inter nationalen Kongresses für griechische und lateinische Epigraphik, Wien, 17. bis 22. September 1962. Vienna: 192 201. Korres, M. 2000. ‘Ἀναθηματικὰ καὶ τιμητικὰ τέθριππα στὴν Ἀθήνα καὶ τοῦς Δελφούς’, in Delphes: Cent ans après la grande fouille, essai de bilan, actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française d’Athènes, Athénes Delphes, 17 20 Septembre 1992, ed. A. Jacquemin. BCH Supplement 36. Athens: 293 329. Kotsidu, H. 1991. Die musischen Agone der Panathenäen in archaischer und klassischer Zeit: Eine historisch archäologische Untersuchung. Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt 8. Munich. Kotsidu, H. 2000. Τιμὴ καὶ δόξα: Ehrungen für hellenistische Herrscher im grie chischen Mutterland und in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Denkmäler. Berlin. Kowalzig, B., and Wilson, P. 2013a. ‘Introduction: the world of the dithyramb’, in Kowalzig and Wilson 2013b: 1 27. Kowalzig, B., and Wilson, P. (eds.) 2013b. Dithyramb in Context. Oxford. Kralli, I. 2003. ‘The date and context of divine honours for Antigonos Gonatas a suggestion’, in Palagia and Tracy 2003: 61 6. Kratzmüller, B. 1993. ‘Synoris Apene: Zweigespannrennen an den Großen Panathenäen’, Nikephoros 6: 75 91. Krentz, P. 1982. The Thirty at Athens. Ithaca, NY. Kreuzer, B. 2017. Samos XXIII: Panathenäische Preisamphoren und rotfigurige Keramik aus dem Heraion von Samos. Wiesbaden. Kritzas, C. 2015. ‘Ἀττικὰ ψηφίσματα πρὸς τιμὴν τῶν σιτοφυλάκων (239/8 238/7 π.Χ.)’, in Matthaiou and Papazarkadas 2015: 125 71. Kroll, J. H. 1979. ‘The Parthenon frieze as a votive relief’, AJA 83: 349 52. Kron, U. 1976. Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen: Geschichte, Mythos, Kult und Darstellungen. MDAI(A) Beiheft 5. Berlin. Kron, U. 1988. ‘Erechtheus’, in LIMC IV: Eros Herakles. Zurich: 923 51. Kyle, D. G. 1987. Athletics in Ancient Athens. Mnemosyne Supplement 95. Leiden. Kyle, D. G. 1992. ‘The Panathenaic games: sacred and civic athletics’, in Neils 1992c: 77 101. Kyle, D. G. 1996. ‘Gifts and glory: Panathenaic and other Greek athletic prizes’, in Neils 1996b: 106 36. Kyriakou, P. 2006. A Commentary on Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris. Berlin. Lacore, M. 1983. ‘Euripide et le culte de Poseidon Erechthée’, REA 85: 215 34. Lambert, S. D. 1997. ‘The Attic genos Salaminioi and the island of Salamis’, ZPE 119: 85 106. Lambert, S. D. 2002a. ‘The sacrificial calendar of Athens’, ABSA 97: 353 99. Lambert, S. D. 2002b. ‘Parerga III: the Genesia, Basile and Epops again’, ZPE 139: 75 82.

475

476

Bibliography Lambert, S. D. 2005. ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1 322/1: religious regulations’, ZPE 154: 125 59. Lambert, S. D. 2011. ‘What was the point of inscribed honorific decrees in classical Athens?’, in Sociable Man: Essays on Ancient Greek Social Behaviour in Honour of Nick Fisher, ed. S. D. Lambert. Swansea: 193 214. Lambert, S. D. 2015. ‘Aristocracy and the Attic genos: a mythological perspective’, in ‘Aristocracy’ in Antiquity: Redefining Greek and Roman Elites, eds. N. Fisher and H. van Wees. Swansea: 169 202. Lamberton, R. 1997. ‘Plutarch and the Romanization of Athens’, in Hoff and Rotroff 1997: 151 60. Lambrinudakis, V., with Bruneau, P., Palagia, O., Daumas, M., Kokkorou Alevras, G., and Mathiopoulou Tornaritou, E. 1984. ‘Apollon’, in LIMC II: Aphrodite Athena. Zurich: 183 327. Langdon, M. K. 1987. ‘An Attic decree concerning Oropos’, Hesperia 56: 47 58. Langdon, M. K. 2016. ‘Nea: land mass or parcel of land?’, ZPE 198: 97 9. Lape, S. 2010. Race and Citizen Identity in the Classical Athenian Democracy. Cambridge. Larmour, D. H. J. 1999. Stage and Stadium: Drama and Athletics in Ancient Greece. Nikephoros Beiheft 4. Hildesheim. Larson, J. 2016. Understanding Greek Religion: A Cognitive Approach. London. Lattimore, S. 1996. Isthmia VI: Sculpture II: Marble Sculpture, 1967 1980. Princeton. Lavelle, B. M. 1986. ‘The nature of Hipparchos’ insult to Harmodios’, AJPh 107: 318 31. Lavelle, B. M. 1993. The Sorrow and the Pity: Prolegomenon to a History of Athens under the Peisistratids, c. 560 510 bc. Historia Einzelschrift 80. Stuttgart. Lavelle, B. M. 2014. ‘Hippokleides, the “dance” and the Panathenaia’, GRBS 54: 313 41. Lawler, S. 2008. Identity: Sociological Perspectives. Cambridge. Lazzarini, M. L. 2000. ‘Atene, gli alleati e il tesoro di Atena: considerazioni su alcuni inventari del IV secolo a. C.’, RFIC 128: 155 69. Le Boeuffle, A. (ed. and trans.) 1983. Hygin: L’astronomie. Paris. Lee, M. M. 2004. ‘“Evil wealth of raiment”: deadly πέπλοι in Greek tragedy’, CJ 99: 253 79. Le Guen, B. 2001. Les associations de Technites dionysiaques à l’époque hellénistique. Études d’Archéologie Classique 11. Nancy. Lewis, D. M. 1955. ‘Notes on Attic inscriptions (II)’, ABSA 50: 1 36. Lewis, D. M. 1959. ‘Law on the Lesser Panathenaia’, Hesperia 28: 239 47. Lewis, D. M. 1988. ‘The last inventories of the treasurers of Athena’, in Comptes et inventaires dans la cité grecque: Actes du colloque international d’épigraphie, tenu à Neuchâtel du 23 au 26 septembre1986 en honneur de Jacques Tréheux, ed. D. Knoepfler. Geneva: 297 308.

Bibliography Lissarrague, F. 1990. ‘Why satyrs are good to represent’, in Winkler and Zeitlin 1990: 228 36. Lonsdale, S. H. 1993. Dance and Ritual Play in Greek Religion. Baltimore. Loraux, N. 1986. The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City. Cambridge, MA. Loraux, N. 1993. The Children of Athena: Athenian Ideas about Citizenship and the Division between the Sexes. Princeton. Loraux, N. 2000. Born of the Earth: Myth and Politics in Athens. Ithaca, NY. Low, P. 2002. ‘Cavalry identity and democratic ideology in early fourth century Athens’, PCPhS 48: 102 22. Lozano, F. 2002. La religión del poder: El culto imperial en Atenas en época de Augusto y los emperadores Julio Claudios. Oxford. Lozano, F. 2007. ‘Los agones de los Augustos en Atenas’, in XII Congressus Internationalis Epigraphicae Graecae et Latinae. Provinciae Imperii Romani inscriptionibus descriptae: Barcelona, 3 8 Septembris II, eds. M. Mayer i Olivé, G. Baratta and A. Guzmán Almagro. Barcelona: 851 56. Luna, C., and Segonds, A. P. 2007. Proclus: Commentaire sur le Parménide de Platon I.1: Introduction générale. Paris. Luni, M. 2003. ‘Nuove anfore panatenaiche da Cirene’, QAL 18: 97 113. Lupu, E. 2009. Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (NGSL2), 2nd ed. Leiden. Luraghi, N. 2008. The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory. Cambridge. Lyne, R. O. A. M. (ed.) 1978. Ciris: A Poem Attributed to Vergil, Edited with an Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge. Lyons, C. L. 2009. ‘Nikosthenic pyxides between Etruria and Greece’, in Athenian Potters and Painters II, eds. J. H. Oakley and O. Palagia. Oxford: 166 80. Ma, J. 2013. Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World. Oxford. MacDowell, D. M. (ed.) 1962. Andokides: On the Mysteries, Edited with Introduction, Commentary and Appendixes. Oxford. MacDowell, D. M. (ed. and trans.) 1990. Demosthenes: Against Meidias (Oration 21), Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford. Maffre, J. J. 2001. ‘Amphores panathénaïques découvertes en Cyrénaïque’, in Bentz and Eschbach 2001: 25 32. Maffre, J. J. 2006. ‘Céramique grecque de la nécropole occidentale d’Apollonia’, in Cirenaica. Studi, scavi e scoperte, Atti del X Convegno di Archeologia Cirenaica, Chieti 24 26 Novembre 2003 I: Nuovi dati da città e territorio, eds. E. Fabbricotti and O. Menozzi. Oxford: 217 30. Makres, A. N. 2004 9. ‘Ἀναθηματικὴ ἐπιγραφὴ ἀπὸ τὶς Ἀχαρνές’, Horos 17 21: 143 6. Makres, A. 2009. ‘The Atarbos base from the Akropolis of Athens revisited’, in Themos and Papazarkadas 2009: 225 46.

477

478

Bibliography Makres, A. 2014. ‘IG I3 82 revisited’, in Matthaiou and Pitt 2014: 185 202. Malešević, S. 2002. ‘Identity: conceptual, operational and historical critique’, in Malešević and Haugaard 2002: 195 215. Malešević, S. 2003. ‘Researching social and ethnic identity: a sceptical view’, Journal of Language and Politics 2: 265 87. Malešević, S., and Haugaard, M. (eds.) 2002. Making Sense of Collectivities: Ethnicity, Nationalism and Globalisation. London. Malouchou, G. E. 2014. ‘A second facsimile of the Erythrai decree (IG I3 14)’, in Matthaiou and Pitt 2014: 73 95. Manieri, A. 2009. Agoni poetico musicali nella Grecia antica I: Beozia. Pisa. Mansfield, J. M. 1985. The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic Peplos, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. Marangou, L. I. (ed.) 1995. Ancient Greek Art from the Collection of Stavros S. Niarchos. Athens. Marcaccini, C. 2015. ‘The treasurers of Athena in the late 5th century bc: when did they take office?’, Hesperia 84: 515 32. Marr, J. L., and Rhodes, P. J. (eds. and trans.) 2008. The ‘Old Oligarch’: The Constitution of the Athenians Attributed to Xenophon, Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford. Matthaiou, A. P. 2009. ‘Attic public inscriptions of the fifth century bc in Ionic script’, in Mitchell and Rubinstein 2009: 201 12. Matthaiou, A., and Papazarkadas, N. (eds.) 2015. Ἄξων: Studies in Honor of Ronald S. Stroud I. Athens. Matthaiou, A. P., and Pitt, R. K. (eds.) 2014. Ἀθηναίων ἐπίσκοπος: Studies in Honour of Harold B. Mattingly. Athens. Matthiessen, K. (ed. and trans.) 2008. Euripides: Hekabe, herausgegeben, kommen tiert und übersetzt. Berlin. Mattingly, H. B. 1974. ‘The language of Athenian imperialism’, Epigraphica 36: 33 56. Mattingly, H. B. 1979. ‘L. Julius Caesar, governor of Macedonia’, Chiron 9: 147 67. Mattingly, H. B. 1987. ‘The Athenian Coinage Decree and the assertion of empire’, in Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires: The Ninth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, ed. I. Carradice. Oxford: 65 71. Mattingly, H. B. 1997. ‘The date and purpose of the pseudo Xenophon constitution of Athens’, CQ 47: 352 7. Mattingly, H. B. 2000. ‘The Athena Nike dossier: IG 13 35/36 and 64 a b’, CQ 50: 604 6. Mattingly, H. B. 2007. ‘Two fifth century Attic epigraphic texts revisited’, ZPE 162: 107 10. Maurizio, L. 1998. ‘The Panathenaic procession: Athens’ participatory democracy on display?’, in Boedeker and Raaflaub 1998: 297 317.

Bibliography Maxwell, J. 2012. ‘Paganism and Christianization’, in The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, ed. S. F. Johnson. Oxford: 849 75. Meiggs, R. 1972. The Athenian Empire. Oxford. Meiggs, R., and Lewis, D. (eds.) 1988. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century bc, rev. ed. Oxford. Meritt, B. D. 1963. ‘Greek inscriptions’, Hesperia 32: 1 56. Meritt, B. D. 1968. ‘Greek inscriptions’, Hesperia 37: 266 98. Meritt, B. D. 1977. ‘Athenian archons 347/46 48/47 bc’, Historia 26: 161 91. Meritt, B. D. 1978. ‘The chronology of the Peloponnesian War II’, PAPhS 122: 287 93. Meritt, B. D., and Traill, J. S. 1974. Agora XV: Inscriptions: The Athenian Councillors. Princeton. Meritt, B. D., and Wade Gery, H. T. 1962. ‘The dating of documents to the mid fifth century I’, JHS 82: 67 74. Merkelbach, R. 1987. ‘Der Fünfkämpfer Nikoladas’, ZPE 67: 293 5. Metaxa Prokopiou, N. 1970. ‘Παναθηναϊκὸς ἀμφορεὺς ἑλληνιστικῆς ἐποχῆς ἐκ τῆς περιοχῆς Φιλοπάππου’, AD 25, Α: 97 9. Meyer, M. 2017. Athena, Göttin von Athen: Kult und Mythos auf der Akropolis bis in klassische Zeit. Vienna. McInerney, J. 2010. The Cattle of the Sun: Cows and Culture in the World of the Ancient Greeks. Princeton. Mikalson, J. D. 1975. The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year. Princeton. Mikalson, J. D. 1976. ‘Erechtheus and the Panathenaia’, AJPh 97: 141 53. Mikalson, J. D. 1977. ‘Religion in the Attic demes’, AJPh 98: 424 35. Mikalson, J. D. 1998. Religion in Hellenistic Athens. Berkeley. Mikalson, J. D. 2007. ‘Gods and athletic games’, in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007: 33 40. Mikalson, J. D. 2010. Greek Popular Religion in Greek Philosophy. Oxford. Mikalson, J. D. 2016. New Aspects of Religion in Ancient Athens: Honors, Authorities, Esthetics and Society. Leiden. Millar, F. 1969. ‘P. Herennius Dexippos: the Greek world and the third century invasions’, JRS 59: 12 29. Miller, J. 2016. ‘Euergetism, agonism and democracy: the hortatory intention in late classical and early Hellenistic Athenian honorific decrees’, Hesperia 85: 385 435. Miller, M. C. 1997. Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century bc: A Study in Cultural Receptivity. Cambridge. Miller, S. G. 2004. Ancient Greek Athletics. New Haven. Millis, B. W., and Olson, S. D. (eds.) 2012. Inscriptional Records for Dramatic Festivals in Athens: IG II2 2318 2325 and Related Texts, Edited with Introductions and Commentary, Leiden.

479

480

Bibliography Mitchel, F. W. 1964. ‘Derkylos of Hagnous and the date of I.G., II2, 1187’, Hesperia 33: 337 51. Mitchell, L., and Rubinstein, L. (eds.) 2009. Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P. J. Rhodes. Swansea. Mommsen, A. 1898. Feste der Stadt Athen im Altertum, 2nd ed. Leipzig. Mommsen, H. 2013. CVA Deutschland: Berlin, Antikensammlung, ehemals Antiquarium XIV: Attisch schwarzfigurige Amphoren. Munich. Montanari, E. 1981. Il mito dell’autoctonia: Linee di una dinamica mitica politica ateniese, 2nd ed. Rome. Moore, M. B. 1979. ‘Lydos and the Gigantomachy’, AJA 83: 79 99. Moore, M. B. 1997. Agora XXX: Attic Red Figured and White Ground Pottery. Princeton. Moore, M. B. 1999. ‘“Nikias made me”: an early Panathenaic prize amphora in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’, MMJ 34: 37 56. Moretti, L. 1953. Iscrizioni agonistiche greche. Rome. Moretti, L. 1957. Olympionikai: I vincitori negli antichi agoni Olimpici. Rome. Moretti, L. 1987. ‘Serapion di Alessandria, velocista’, Epigraphica 49: 71 5. Moretti, L. 1991. ‘Dagli Heraia all’ Aspis di Argo’, MGR 16: 179 89. Morgan, J. R. 1996. ‘Heliodoros’, in The Novel in the Ancient World, ed. G. Schmeling. Mnemosyne Supplement 159. Leiden: 417 56. Morgan, K. A. (ed.) 2003. Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty and Its Discontents in Ancient Greece. Austin. Moroo, A. 2014. ‘The Erythrai decrees reconsidered: IG I3 14, 15 and 16’, in Matthaiou and Pitt 2014: 97 119. Morris, I. 2009. ‘The greater Athenian state’, in The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium, eds. I. Morris and W. Scheidel. Oxford: 99 177. Morrison, J. S., Coates, J. F., and Rankov, N. B. 2000. The Athenian Trireme: The History and Reconstruction of an Ancient Greek Warship, 2nd ed. Cambridge. Müller, H. 1989. ‘Ein neues hellenistisches Weihepigramm aus Pergamon’, Chiron 19: 499 553. Müller, S. 1996. ‘“Herrlich Ruhm im Sport oder Krieg”: der Apobates und die Funktion des Sports in der griechischen Polis’, Nikephoros 9: 41 69. Musco, S., Caspio, A., Mannino, M., Molari, C., Rizzo, G., and Zabotti, F. 2009. ‘Anfore panatenaiche e pseudo panatenaiche dal suburbio orientale di Roma’, in Ceramica attica da santuari della Grecia, della Ionia e dell’Italia (Atti Convegno Internazionale Perugia 14 17 marzo 2007), eds. S. Fortunelli and C. Masseria. Venosa: 189 216. Nachtergael, G. 1977. Les Galates en Grèce et les Sôtéria de Delphes: Recherches d’histoire et d’épigraphie hellénistiques. Brussels. Nagy, B. 1978. ‘The ritual in slab V east on the Parthenon frieze’, CPh 73: 136 41. Nagy, B. 1980. ‘A late Panathenaic document’, AncW 3: 107 11.

Bibliography Nagy, B. 1992. ‘Athenian officials on the Parthenon frieze’, AJA 96: 55 69. Nagy, G. 1996. Homeric Questions. Austin. Nagy, G. 2002. Plato’s Rhapsody and Homer’s Music: The Poetics of the Panathenaic Festival in Classical Athens. Washington, DC. Naiden, F. S. 2013. Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the Archaic through the Roman Periods. Oxford. Neer, R. T. 2002. Style and Politics in Athenian Vase Painting: The Craft of Democracy, ca. 530 460 bce. Cambridge. Neils, J. 1987. The Youthful Deeds of Theseus. Rome. Neils, J. 1992a. ‘The Panathenaia: an introduction’, in Neils 1992c: 13 27. Neils, J. 1992b. ‘Panathenaic amphoras: their meaning, makers and markets’, in Neils 1992c: 29 51. Neils, J. (ed.) 1992c. Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens. Hanover, NH. Neils, J. 1994a. ‘The Panathenaia and Kleisthenic ideology’, in The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy, eds. W. D. E. Coulson, O. Palagia, T. L. Shear, Jr, H. A. Shapiro and F. J. Frost. Oxford: 151 60. Neils, J. 1994b. ‘Theseus’, in LIMC VII: Oidipous Theseus. Zurich: 922 51. Neils, J. 1996a. ‘Pride, pomp and circumstances: the iconography of procession’, in Neils 1996b: 177 97. Neils, J. (ed.) 1996b. Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and Parthenon. Madison, WI. Neils, J. 2001. The Parthenon Frieze. Cambridge. Neils, J. 2007. ‘Replicating tradition: the first celebrations of the Greater Panathenaia’, in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007: 41 51. Neils, J. 2009. ‘Textile dedications to female divinities: the case of the peplos’, in Le donateur, l’offrande et la déesse: Systèmes votifs dans les sanctuaires de déesses du monde grec. Actes du 31e colloque international organisé par l’UMR Halma Ipel (Université Charles de Gaulle/Lille 3, 13 15 décembre 2007), ed. C. Prêtre with S. Huysecom Haxhi. Liège: 135 47. Neils, J. 2012. ‘The political process in the public festival: the Panathenaic festival at Athens’, in Brandt and Iddeng 2012: 199 215. Neils, J., and Schultz, P. 2012. ‘Erechtheus and the apobates race on the Parthenon frieze (north XI XII)’, AJA 116: 195 207. Newby, Z. 2005. Greek Athletics in the Roman World: Victory and Virtue. Oxford. Nicholson, N. J. 2005. Aristocracy and Athletics in Archaic and Classical Greece. Cambridge. Niku, M. 2004. ‘When and why did the Athenian μετοικία system disappear?’, Arctos 38: 76 93. Niku, M. 2007. The Official Status of Foreign Residents in Athens, 322 120 bc. Helsinki. Niku, M. 2013. ‘Spheres of interaction and cooperation between citizens and foreigners in the religious life of Hellenistic Athens’, in Religious

481

482

Bibliography

Participation in Ancient and Medieval Societies: Rituals, Interaction and Identity, eds. S. Katajala Peltomaa and V. Vuolanto. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 41. Rome: 51 63. Norman, N. J. 1983. ‘The Panathenaic ship’, ArchN 12: 41 6. Ober, J. 1989. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology and the Power of the People. Princeton. Ober, J. 1994. ‘Civic ideology and counterhegemonic discourse: Thucydides on the Sicilian debate’, in Boegehold and Scafuro 1994: 102 26. Ober, J., and Strauss, B. 1990. ‘Drama, political rhetoric and the discourse of Athenian democracy’, in Winkler and Zeitlin 1990: 237 70. Oetjen, R. 2014. Athen im dritten Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Politik und Gesellschaft in den Garnisonsdemen auf der Grundlage der inschriftlichen Überlieferung. Duisburg. Ogden, D. (ed.) 2007. A Companion to Greek Religion. Malden, MA. Oliver, G. 2001. ‘The politics of coinage: Athens and Antigonus Gonatas’, in Money and Its Uses in the Ancient Greek World, eds. A. Meadows and K. Shipton. Oxford: 35 52. Oliver G. J. 2006. ‘Polis economies and the cost of the cavalry in early Hellenistic Greece’, in Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange Presented to John H. Kroll, ed. P. G. van Alfen. New York: 109 24. Oliver, G. J. 2007a. ‘Space and the visualization of power in the Greek polis: the award of portrait statues in decrees from Athens’, in Schultz and von den Hoff 2007: 181 204. Oliver, G. J. 2007b. ‘Économie et société dans une cité hellénistique: l’exemple d’Athènes au IIIe siècle av. J. C.’, in Économies et sociétés en Grèce classique et hellénistique: Actes du colloque de la SOPHAU, Bordeaux, 30 31 Mars 2007. ed. P. Brun. Pallas 74: 277 91. Oliver, G. J. 2007c. War, Food and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens. Oxford. Oliver, J. H. 1968. The Civilizing Power: A Study of the Panathenaic Discourse of Aelius Aristides against the Background of Literature and Cultural Conflict, with Text, Translation, Commentary. TAPhS 58.1. Philadelphia. Olivová, V. 1989. ‘Chariot racing in the ancient world’, Nikephoros 2: 65 88. Osborne, M. J. 1981 3. Naturalization in Athens I IV. Brussels. Osborne, M. J. 1985. ‘The archonship of Nikias Hysteros and the secretary cycles in the third century bc’, ZPE 58: 275 95. Osborne, M. J. 2004. ‘The archons of IG II2 1273’, in Ἀττικαὶ Ἐπιγραφαί: Πρακτικὰ Συμποσίου εἰς μνήμην Adolf Wilhelm (1864 1950), eds. A. P. Matthaiou with G. E. Malouchou. Athens: 199 211. Osborne, M. J. 2006. ‘The eponymous archons of Athens from 300/299 to 286/5’, AncSoc 36: 69 80. Osborne, M. 2008. ‘The date of the Athenian archon Thrasymachos’, ZPE 164: 85 9. Osborne, M. J. 2009. ‘The archons of Athens 300/299 228/7’, ZPE 171: 83 99.

Bibliography Osborne, M. J. 2010. ‘Sarapion, son of Sarapion, of Melite an inadvertent chronographer’, in Onomatologos: Studies in Greek Personal Names Presented to Elaine Matthews, eds. R. W. V. Catling and F. Marchand with M. Sasanow. Oxford: 168 72. Osborne, M. J. 2012a. Athens in the Third Century bc. Athens. Osborne, M. J. 2012b. ‘Months, prytanies and the meeting times of the Athenian assembly (300/299 228/7)’, ZPE 183: 141 70. Osborne, M. J. 2015. ‘The Athenian decree for Kallias of Sphettos and the Panathenaia’, in Matthaiou and Papazarkadas 2015: 59 76. Osborne, M. J. 2016. ‘Panathenaic fantasies’, ZPE 198: 88 96. Osborne, M. J., and Byrne, S. G. 1994. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names II: Attica. Oxford. Osborne, R. 1987. ‘Viewing and obscuring the Parthenon frieze’, JHS 107: 98 105. Osborne, R. 1993. ‘Competitive festivals and the polis: a context for dramatic festivals in Athens’, in Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis: Papers from the Greek Drama Conference, Nottingham, 18 20 July 1990, eds. A. H. Sommerstein, S. Halliwell, J. Henderson and B. Zimmermann. Bari: 21 38. Osborne, R. 2000. ‘Women and sacrifice in classical Greece’, in Buxton 2000: 294 313. Osborne, R. 2003. ‘Changing the discourse’, in K. A. Morgan 2003: 251 72. Osborne, R. (trans.) 2004. The Old Oligarch: Pseudo Xenophon’s Constitution of the Athenians, Introduction, Translation and Commentary, 2nd ed. LACTOR 2. London. Osborne, R. (ed.) 2007. Debating the Athenian Cultural Revolution: Art, Literature, Philosophy and Politics 430 380 bc. Cambridge. Osborne, R. 2010. ‘Democratic ideology, the events of war and the iconography of Attic funerary sculpture’, in Pritchard 2010: 245 65. Osborne, R. 2011. The History Written on the Classical Greek Body. Cambridge. Osborne, R. 2016. ‘Sacrificial theologies’, in Theologies of Ancient Greek Religion, eds. E. Eidinow, J. Kindt and R. Osborne. Cambridge: 233 48. Osborne, R., and Hornblower, S. (eds.) 1994. Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis. Oxford. Osborne, R., and Rhodes, P. J. (eds. and trans.) 2017. Greek Historical Inscriptions: 478 404 bc, Edited with Introduction, Translations and Commentaries. Oxford. O’Sullivan, L. 2009. The Regime of Demetrius of Phalerum in Athens, 317 307 bce. Mnemosyne Supplement 318. Leiden. Oudot, E. 2008. ‘Aelius Aristides and Thucydides: some remarks about the Panathenaic Oration’, in Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome and the Gods, eds. W. V. Harris and B. Holmes. Leiden: 31 49. Owens, T. J., Robinson, D. J., and Smith Lovin, L. 2010. ‘Three faces of identity’, Annual Review of Sociology 36: 477 99.

483

484

Bibliography Palagia, O. 2000. ‘A gymnasiarch’s dedication and the Panathenaic torch race’, in Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων. Mythes et cultes: Études d’iconographie en l’honneur de Lilly Kahil, ed. P. Linant de Bellefonds. BCH Supplement 38. Athens: 403 8. Palagia, O. 2008. ‘The date and iconography of the Calendar Frieze in the Little Metropolis, Athens’, JDAI 123: 215 37. Palagia, O., and Choremi Spetsieri, A. (eds.) 2007. The Panathenaic Games: Proceedings of an International Conference Held at the University of Athens, May 11 12, 2004. Oxford. Palagia O., and Tracy, S. V. (eds.) 2003. The Macedonians in Athens, 323 229 bc: Proceedings of an International Conference Held at the University of Athens, May 24 26, 2001. Oxford. Pàmias, J., and Geus, K. (eds. and trans.) 2007. Eratosthenes: Sternsagen (Catasterismi), herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert. Oberhaid. Pàmias i Massana, J. (ed.) and Zucker, A. (trans.) 2013. Ératosthène de Cyrène: Catastérismes. Paris. Papazarkadas, N. 2009. ‘The decree of Aigeis and Aiantis (Agora I 6793) revisited’, in Themos and Papazarkadas 2009: 165 81. Papazarkadas, N. 2011. Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens. Oxford. Parke, H. W. 1977. Festivals of the Athenians. London. Parker, R. 1987. ‘Festivals of Attic demes’, in Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985, eds. T. Linders and G. Nordquist. Uppsala: 137 47. Parker, R. 1987. ‘Myths of early Athens’, in Interpretations of Greek Mythology, ed. J. Bremmer. London: 187 214. Parker, R. 1996. Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford. Parker, R. 1998. ‘Pleasing thighs: reciprocity in Greek religion’, in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, eds. C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite and R. Seaford. Oxford: 105 25. Parker, R. 2004. ‘New “Panhellenic” festivals in Hellenistic Greece’, in Mobility and Travel in the Mediterranean from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, eds. R. Schlieser and U. Zellmann. Münster: 9 22. Parker, R. 2005. Polytheism and Society at Athens. Oxford. Parker, R. 2011. On Greek Religion. Ithaca, NY. Paschidis, P. 2008. Between City and King: Prosopographical Studies on the Intermediaries between the Cities of the Greek Mainland and the Aegean and the Royal Courts in the Hellenistic Period (322 190 bc). Athens. Patera, I. 2012. Offrir en Grèce ancienne: Gestes et contextes. Stuttgart. Paton, J. M., and Stevens, G. P., with Caskey, L. D., and Fowler, H. N. 1927. The Erechtheum. Cambridge, MA. Patrucco, R. 1972. Lo sport nella Grecia antica. Florence. Patterson, C. 1986. ‘Hai Attikai: the other Athenians’, Helios 13.2: 49 67. Pélékidis, C. 1962. Histoire de l’éphébie attique des origines à 31 avant Jésus Christ. Paris.

Bibliography Pemberton, E. G. 1981. ‘Dedications by Alkibiades and Thrasyboulos’, ABSA 76: 309 21. Penella, R. J. (trans.) 2007. Man and the Word: The Orations of Himerius, Translated, Annotated and Introduced. Berkeley. Perrin Saminadayar, É. 2004. ‘L’éphébie attique de la crise mithridatique à Hadrien: miroir de la société athénienne?’, in L’hellénisme d’époque romaine: Nouveaux documents, nouvelles approches (Ier s. a.C. IIIe s. p.C.). Actes du colloque international à la mémoire de Louis Robert, Paris, 7 8 juillet 2000, ed. S. Follet. Paris: 87 103. Perrin Saminadayar, É. 2007. Éducation, culture et société à Athènes. Les acteurs de la vie culturelle athénienne (229 88): Un tout petit monde. Paris. Peters, K. 1942. Studien zu den panathenäischen Preisamphoren. Berlin. Petrakos, V. C. 1999. Ὁ Δῆμος τοῦ Ῥαμνοῦντος. Σύνοψη τῶν ἀνασκαφῶν καὶ τῶν ἐρευνῶν (1813 1998) II: Οἱ Ἐπιγραφές. Athens. Pharmakowski, B. 1912. ‘Archäologische Funde im Jahre 1911: Rußland’, AA 1912: cols. 323 81. Pickard Cambridge, A. W. 1988. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2nd ed. rev. Oxford. Pinney, G. F. 1988. ‘Pallas and Panathenaea’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery: Copenhagen, August 31 September 4, 1987, eds. J. Christiansen and T. Melander. Copenhagen: 465 77. Pitt, R. K. 2009 10. ‘Archaeology in Greece 2009 2010: Athens and Attica’, AR 56: 3 19. Pleket, H. W. 1973. ‘Some aspects of the history of the athletic guilds’, ZPE 10: 197 227. Pleket, H. W. 2010. ‘Roman emperors and Greek athletes’, Nikephoros 23: 175 203. Poliakoff, M. B. 1987. Combat Sports in the Ancient World: Competition, Violence and Culture. New Haven. Pollitt, J. J. 1997. ‘The meaning of the Parthenon frieze’, in The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome, ed. D. Buitron Oliver. Studies in the History of Art 49. Washington, DC: 51 65. Potter, D. 2012. The Victor’s Crown: A History of Ancient Sport from Homer to Byzantium. Oxford. Pounder, R. L. 1983. ‘A Hellenistic arsenal in Athens’, Hesperia 52: 233 56. Poursat, J. C. 1968. ‘Les representations de la danse armée dans la ceramique attique’, BCH 92: 550 615. Preller, L., and Robert, C. 1894. Griechische Mythologie I: Theogonie und Goetter, 4th ed. Berlin. Price, S. R. F. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge. Price, S. 1999. Religions of the Ancient Greeks. Cambridge. Pritchard, D. M. (ed.) 2010. War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens. Cambridge.

485

486

Bibliography

Pritchard, D. M. 2015. Public Spending and Democracy in Classical Athens. Austin. Pritchett, W. K. 1977. ‘The hellenotamiai and Athenian finance’, Historia 26: 295 306. Pritchett, W. K. 1987. ‘The παννυχίς of the Panathenaia’, in Φίλια ἔπη εἰς Γεώργιον Ε. Μυλωνᾶν διὰ τὰ 60 ἔτη τοῦ ἀνασκαφικοῦ τοῦ ἔργου II. Athens: 179 88. Psoma, S. 2009. ‘Thucydide I, 61, 4: Béroia et la nouvelle localisation de Bréa’, REG 122: 263 80. Puech, B. 2002. Orateurs et sophistes grecs dans les inscriptions d’époque impériale. Paris. Pulleyn, S. 1997. Prayer in Greek Religion. Oxford. Raaflaub, K. A. 2000. ‘Zeus Eleutherios, Dionysos the liberator and the Athenian Tyrannicides: anachronistic uses of fifth century political concepts’, in Flensted Jensen, Nielsen and Rubinstein 2000: 249 75. Raaflaub, K. A. 2003. ‘Stick and glue: the function of tyranny in fifth century Athenian democracy’, in K. A. Morgan 2003: 59 93. Raaflaub, K. A. 2004. The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece. Chicago. Rattenbury, R. M., Lumb, T. W. (eds.) and Maillon, J. (trans.) 1935. Héliodore: Les Éthiopiques (Théagène et Chariclée) I. Paris. Raubitschek, A. E. 1941. ‘Two notes on Isocrates’, TAPhA 72: 356 64. Raubitschek, A. E. 1949. Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis: A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries bc. Cambridge, MA. Raubitschek, A. E. 1951. ‘Sylleia’, in Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson, ed. P. R. Coleman Norton with F. C. Bourne and J. V. A. Fine. Princeton: 49 57. Rausa, F. 1998. ‘Due donari agonistici dall’ Acropoli’, MDAI(A) 113: 191 234. Rausch, M. 1998. ‘Zeitpunkt und Anlaß der Einführung der Phylenagone in Athen’, Nikephoros 11: 83 105. Rausch, M. 1999. Isonomia in Athen: Veränderungen des öffentlichen Lebens vom Sturz der Tyrannis bis zur zweiten Perserabwehr. Frankfurt. Reed, N. B. 1987. ‘The euandria competition at the Panathenaia reconsidered’, AncW 15: 59 64. Reed, N. 1990. ‘A chariot race for Athens’ finest: the apobates contest re examined’, Journal of Sport History 17: 305 17. Reicher, S. 1996. ‘Social identity and social change: rethinking the context of social psychology’, in W. P. Robinson 1996: 317 36. Reicher, S. 2004. ‘The psychology of crowd dynamics’, in Brewer and Hewstone 2004: 232 58. Reinmuth, O. W. 1965. ‘An ephebic text of ca. 43/2 bc’, Hesperia 34: 255 72. Reinmuth, O. W. 1966. ‘The Attic archons named Apolexis’, BCH 90: 93 100. Remijsen, S. 2011. ‘The so called “crown games”: terminology and historical con text of the ancient categories for agones’, ZPE 177: 97 109. Remijsen, S. 2015a. The End of Greek Athletics in Late Antiquity. Cambridge.

Bibliography Remijsen, S. 2015b. ‘The end of the ancient Olympics and other contests: why the agonistic circuit collapsed in late antiquity’, JHS 135: 147 64. Rhodes, P. J. 1972. The Athenian Boule. Oxford. Rhodes, P. J. 1981. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford. Rhodes, P. J. 1994. ‘The ostracism of Hyperbolus’, in Osborne and Hornblower 1994: 85 98. Rhodes, P. J. 2003. ‘Nothing to do with democracy: Athenian drama and the polis’, JHS 123: 104 19. Rhodes, P. J. 2008. ‘After the three bar sigma controversy: the history of Athenian imperialism reassessed’, CQ 58: 500 6. Rhodes, P. J. 2010. A History of the Greek Classical World, 478 323 bc, 2nd ed. Chichester. Rhodes, P. J. 2011. ‘The Dionysia and democracy again’, CQ 61: 71 4. Rhodes, P. J. 2014. ‘What remains of Periclean imperialism?’, in Matthaiou and Pitt 2014: 39 49. Rhodes, P. J., and Lewis, D. M. 1997. The Decrees of the Greek States. Oxford. Rhodes, P. J., and Osborne, R. (eds. and trans.) 2003. Greek Historical Inscriptions: 404 323 bc, Edited with Introduction, Translations and Commentaries. Oxford. Robert, C. 1900. ‘Die Ordnung der olympischen Spiele und die Sieger der 75. 83. Olympiade’, Hermes 35: 141 95. Robert, L. 1960. Hellenica: Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques XI XII. Paris. Robertson, N. 1985. ‘The origin of the Panathenaea’, RhM 128: 231 95. Robertson, N. 1992. Festivals and Legends: The Formation of Greek Cities in the Light of Public Ritual. Phoenix Supplement 31. Toronto. Robertson, N. 2004a. ‘The Praxiergidai decree (IG I3 7) and the dressing of Athena’s statue with the peplos’, GRBS 44: 111 61. Robertson, N. 2004b. ‘Pandora and the Panathenaic peplos’, in The Parthenon and Its Sculptures, ed. M. B. Cosmopoulos. Cambridge: 86 113. Robinson, D. M. 1933. Excavations at Olynthos V: Mosaics, Vases and Lamps Found in 1928 and 1931. Baltimore. Robinson, W. P. (ed.) 1996. Social Groups and Identities: Developing the Legacy of Henri Tajfel. Oxford. Roccos, L. J. 1995. ‘The kanephoros and her festival mantle in Greek art’, AJA 99: 641 66. Rosivach, V. J. 1987. ‘Autochthony and the Athenians’, CQ 37: 294 306. Rosivach, V. J. 1991. ‘IG II2 334 and the Panathenaic hekatomb’, PP 46: 430 42. Rosivach, V. J. 1994. The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth Century Athens. Atlanta. Ross, M. H. 2001. ‘Psychocultural interpretations and dramas: identity dynamics in ethnic conflict’, Political Psychology 22: 157 78.

487

488

Bibliography

Rothwell, Jr, K. S. 1990. Politics and Persuasion in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae. Mnemosyne Supplement 111. Leiden. Rotroff, S. I. 1977. ‘The Parthenon frieze and the sacrifice to Athena’, AJA 81: 379 82. Rotroff, S. I. 1982. Agora XXII: Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls. Princeton. Rotroff, S. I. 1997. Agora XXIX: Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material. Princeton. Rotstein, A. 2012. ‘Mousikoi agones and the conceptualization of genre in ancient Greece’, ClAnt 31: 92 127. Rotstein, A. 2014. ‘The Parian Marble and the Mnesiepes inscription’, ZPE 190: 3 9. Rubinstein, L. 2004. ‘Ionia’, in Hansen and Nielsen 2004: 1053 107. Rudhardt, J. 1992. Notions fondamentales de la pensée religieuse et actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grèce classique, 2nd ed. Paris. Rüpke, J. 2011. ‘Lived ancient religion: questioning “cults” and “polis religion”’, Mythos 5: 191 203. Rutherford, I. 2013. State Pilgrims and Sacred Observers in Ancient Greece: A Study of Theōriā and Theōroi. Cambridge. Saffrey, H. D., and Westerink, L. G. (eds. and trans.) 1968. Proclus: Théologie platonicienne I. Paris. Ste Croix, G. E. M. de 1972. The Origins of the Peloponnesian War. London. Salzman, M. R. 2011. ‘The end of public sacrifice: changing definitions of sacrifice in post Constantinian Rome and Italy’, in Knust and Várhelyi 2011: 167 83. Sarrazanas, C. 2013. ‘L’agonothète des Théséia de IG II2 961 et le “fantôme” Apolèxis I du Pirée’, ZPE 186: 127 33. Scafuro, A. C. 1994. ‘Witnessing and false witnessing: proving citizenship and kin identity in fourth century Athens’, in Boegehold and Scafuro 1994: 156 98. Scarpi, P. 1979. ‘La pyrrhíche o le armi della persuasione: appunti per una semi ologia storico religiosa e antropologica’, DArch 1: 78 97. Schafter, D. 1991. ‘Musical victories in early classical vase painting’, AJA 95: 333 4. Scheid, J. 2005. Quand faire, c’est croire: Les rites sacrificiels des Romains. Paris. Schmalz, G. C. R. 2009. Augustan and Julio Claudian Athens: A New Epigraphy and Prosopography. Mnemosyne Supplement 302. Leiden. Schmidt, W. 1908. Geburtstag im Altertum. Giessen. Schmitt Pantel, P. 1992. La cité au banquet: Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques. Rome. Schmitz, T. A. 2011. ‘The image of Athens in Diodorus Siculus’, in Schmitz and Wiater 2011: 235 51. Schmitz, T. A., and Wiater, N. (eds.) 2011. The Struggle for Identity: Greeks and Their Past in the First Century bce. Stuttgart. Schrader, H. 1939. Die archaischen Marmorbildwerke der Akropolis. Frankfurt.

Bibliography Schultz, P. 2007. ‘The iconography of the Athenian apobates race: origins, mean ings, transformation’, in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007: 59 72. Schultz, P., and von den Hoff, R. (eds.) 2007. Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context. Cambridge. Schweigert, E. 1938. ‘Inscriptions from the North Slope of the Acropolis’, Hesperia 7: 264 310. Schweigert, E. 1939. ‘Greek inscriptions’, Hesperia 8: 1 47. Schwenk, C. J. 1985. Athens in the Age of Alexander: The Dated Laws and Decrees of the ‘Lykourgan Era’ 338 322 bc. Chicago. Seaford, R. 2000. ‘The social function of Attic tragedy: a response to Jasper Griffin’, CQ 50: 30 44. Seaford, R. 2003. ‘Tragic tyranny’, in K. A. Morgan 2003: 95 115. Sève, M. 1991. ‘Note sur la date du sculpteur Thoinias de Sicyone’, REG 104: 232 5. Shapiro, H. A. 1989. Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens. Mainz. Shapiro, H. A. 1992. ‘Mousikoi agones: music and poetry at the Panathenaia’, in Neils 1992c: 53 75. Shapiro, H. A. 1993a. ‘Pottery, private lives and politics’, in The Birth of Democracy: An Exhibition Celebrating the 2500th Anniversary of Democracy, eds. J. Ober and C. W. Hedrick. Athens: 21 7. Shapiro, H. A. 1993b. ‘Hipparchos and the rhapsodes’, in Dougherty and Kurke 1993: 92 107. Shapiro, H. A. 1998. ‘Autochthony and the visual arts in fifth century Athens’, in Boedeker and Raaflaub 1998: 127 51. Shear, J. L. 2003a. ‘Atarbos’ base and the Panathenaia’, JHS 123: 164 80. Shear, J. L. 2003b. ‘Prizes from Athens: the list of Panathenaic prizes and the sacred oil’, ZPE 142: 87 108. Shear, J. L. 2007a. ‘Cultural change, space and the politics of commemoration in Athens’, in R. Osborne 2007: 91 115. Shear, J. L. 2007b. ‘The oath of Demophantos and the politics of Athenian identity’, in Horkos: The Oath in Greek Society, eds. A. H. Sommerstein and J. Fletcher. Exeter: 148 60. Shear, J. L. 2007c. ‘Royal Athenians: the Ptolemies and Attalids at the Panathenaia’, in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007: 135 45. Shear, J. L. 2010. ‘Demetrios Poliorketes, Kallias of Sphettos and the Panathenaia’, in Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy, eds. G. Reger, F. X. Ryan and T. F. Winters. Bordeaux: 135 52. Shear, J. L. 2011. Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Shear, J. L. 2012a. ‘The politics of the past: remembering revolution at Athens’, in Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History without Historians, eds. J. Marincola, L. Llewellyn Jones and C. Maciver. Edinburgh Leventis Studies 6. Edinburgh: 276 300.

489

490

Bibliography Shear, J. L. 2012b. ‘The Tyrannicides, their cult and the Panathenaia: a note’, JHS 132: 107 19. Shear, J. L. 2012c. ‘Religion and the polis: the cult of the Tyrannicides at Athens’, Kernos 25: 27 55. Shear, J. L. 2012d. ‘Hadrian, the Panathenaia and the Athenian calendar’, ZPE 180: 159 72. Shear, J. L. 2013a. ‘“Their memories will never grow old”: the politics of remem brance in the Athenian funeral orations’, CQ 63: 511 36. Shear, J. L. 2013b. ‘Choruses and tripods: the politics of the choregia in Roman Athens’, in Kowalzig and Wilson 2013b: 389 408. Shear, J. L. 2017. ‘Writing past and present in Hellenistic Athens: the honours for Demosthenes’, in Writing Matters: Presenting and Perceiving Monumental Inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, eds. I. Berti, K. Bolle, F. Opdenhoff and F. Stroth. Berlin: 161 89. Shear, J. L. 2020. ‘An inconvenient past in Hellenistic Athens: the case of Phaidros of Sphettos’, in Shaping Memory in Ancient Greece: Poetry, Historiography and Epigraphy, eds. C. Constantakopoulou and M. Fragoulaki. Histos Supplement 11. Newcastle upon Tyne: 269 301. Shear, Jr, T. L. 1971. ‘The Athenian Agora: excavations of 1970’, Hesperia 40: 241 79. Shear, Jr, T. L. 1978. Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 bc. Hesperia Supplement 17. Princeton. Shear, Jr, T. L. 2016. Trophies of Victory: Public Building in Periklean Athens. Princeton. Sickinger, J. P. 2009. ‘Nothing to do with democracy: “formulae of disclosure” and the Athenian epigraphic habit’, in Mitchell and Rubinstein 2009: 87 102. Sigel, R. 2001. ‘An introduction to the symposium on social identity’, Political Psychology 22: 111 14. Simon, E. 1983. Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Commentary. Madison, WI. Sinos, R. H. 1993. ‘Divine selection: epiphany and politics in archaic Greece’, in Dougherty and Kurke 1993: 73 91. Sironen, E. 1994. ‘Life and administration of late Roman Attica in the light of public inscriptions’, in Castrén 1994b: 15 62. Slater, W. J. 2008. ‘Hadrian’s letters to the athletes and Dionysiac Artists concern ing arrangements for the “circuit” of games’, JRA 21: 610 20. Smarczyk, B. 1990. Untersuchungen zur Religionspolitik und politischen Propaganda Athens im Delisch Attischen Seebund. Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt 5. Munich. Smith, A. C. 2011. Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art. Monumenta Graeca et Romana 19. Leiden. Sokolowski, F. 1969. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Paris. Somers, M. R., and Gibson, G. D. 1994. ‘Reclaiming the epistemological other: narrative and the social constitution of identity’, in Calhoun 1994c: 37 99.

Bibliography

Sommerstein, A. H. (ed. and trans.) 1981. Knights, Edited with Translation and Notes. The Comedies of Aristophanes 2. Warminster. Sommerstein, A. H. (ed. and trans.) 1987. Birds, Edited with Translation and Notes. The Comedies of Aristophanes 6. Warminster. Sommerstein, A. H. (ed.) 1989. Aeschylus: Eumenides. Cambridge. Sommerstein, A. H. (ed. and trans.) 1996. Frogs, Edited with Translation and Notes. The Comedies of Aristophanes 9. Warminster. Sommerstein, A. H. (ed. and trans.) 1998. Ecclesiazusae, Edited with Translation and Commentary. The Comedies of Aristophanes 10. Warminster. Sommerstein, A. H. 2014. ‘The authenticity of the Demophantus decree’, CQ 64: 49 57. Sonnino, M. (ed.) 2010. Euripidis Erechthei quae exstant. Florence. Sourvinou Inwood, C. 1994. ‘Something to do with Athens: tragedy and ritual’, in Osborne and Hornblower 1994: 269 90. Sourvinou Inwood, C. 2000a. ‘What is polis religion?’, in Buxton 2000: 13 37; originally published as ‘What is polis religion?’, in The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander, eds. O. Murray and S. Price. Oxford, 1990: 295 322 Sourvinou Inwood, C. 2000b. ‘Further aspects of polis religion’, in Buxton 2000: 38 55; originally published as ‘Further aspects of polis religion’, AION(archeol) 10 (1988): 259 74. Sourvinou Inwood, C. 2003. Tragedy and Athenian Religion. Lanham, MD. Sourvinou Inwood, C. 2011. Athenian Myths and Festivals: Aglauros, Erechtheus, Plynteria, Panathenaia, Dionysia. Oxford. Spawforth, A. 1994. ‘Symbol of unity? The Persian wars tradition in the Roman empire’, in Greek Historiography, ed. S. Hornblower. Oxford: 233 47. Spawforth, A. J. S. 1997. ‘The early reception of the imperial cult in Athens: problems and antiquities’, in Hoff and Rotroff 1997: 183 201. Spawforth, A. J. S. 2012. Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution. Cambridge. Spence, I. G. 1993. The Cavalry of Classical Greece: A Social and Military History with Particular Reference to Athens. Oxford. Stamatopoulou, Z. 2012. ‘Weaving Titans for Athena: Euripides and the Panathenaic peplos (Hec. 466 74 and IT 218 24)’, CQ 62: 72 80. Stansbury O’Donnell, M. D. 1999. Pictorial Narrative in Ancient Greek Art. Cambridge. Stavrianopoulou, E. 2015. ‘The archaeology of processions’, in A Companion to the Archaeology of Religion in the Ancient World, eds. R. Raja and J. Rüpke. Chichester: 349 61. Steinbock, B. 2013. Social Memory in Athenian Public Discourse: Uses and Meanings of the Past. Ann Arbor, MI. Stephanis, I. E. 1988. Διονυσιακοὶ τεχνῖται: συμβολὲς στὴν προσωπογραφία τοῦ θεάτρου καὶ τῆς μουσικῆς τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων. Heraklion.

491

492

Bibliography Stevenson, T. 2003. ‘The Parthenon frieze as an idealized, contemporary Panathenaic festival’, in Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World, eds. D. J. Phillips and D. Pritchard. Swansea: 233 80. Stewart, A. 1997. Art, Desire and the Body in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. Stewart, A. 2018. ‘Classical sculpture from the Athenian Agora, part 1: the pedi ments and akroteria of the Hephaisteion’, Hesperia 87: 681 741. Stillwell, R. 1969. ‘The Panathenaic frieze’, Hesperia 38: 231 41. Stocking, C. H. 2017. The Politics of Sacrifices in Early Greek Myth and Poetry. Cambridge. Strasser, J. Y. 2001. ‘Quelques termes rares du vocabulaire agonistique’, RPh 75: 273 305. Strasser, J. Y. 2003. ‘La carrière du pancratiaste Markos Aurèlios Dèmostratos Damas’, BCH 127: 251 99. Strasser, J. Y. 2004. ‘Les Antôninia Pythia de Rome’, Nikephoros 17: 181 220. Strasser, J. Y. 2004 5. ‘Les Olympia d’Alexandrie et le pancratiaste M. Aur. Asklèpiadès’, BCH 128 9: 421 68. Strasser, J. Y. 2006. ‘L’épreuve artistique διὰ πάντων’, Historia 55: 298 327. Strasser, J. Y. 2018. ‘Inscriptions agonistiques d’Athènes et de Delphes’, BCH 142: 233 78. Stuart, J., and Revett, N. 1787. The Antiquities of Athens II. London. Tajfel, H. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge. Tanoulas, T. 1997. Τὰ Προπύλαια τῆς Ἀθηναϊκῆς Ἀκρόπολης κατὰ τὸν μεσαίωνα. Athens. Taylor, C. 2007. ‘A new political world’, in R. Osborne 2007: 72 90. Taylor, M. W. 1991. The Tyrant Slayers: The Heroic Image in Fifth Century bc Athenian Art and Politics, 2nd ed. Salem, NH. Themelis, P. 2007. ‘Panathenaic prizes and dedications’, in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007: 21 32. Themelis, P. 2009. ‘Ἀνασκαφὴ Μεσσήνης’, PAAH: 61 98. Themos, A. A., and Papazarkadas, N. (eds.) 2009. Ἀττικὰ ἐπιγραφικά: μελέτες πρὸς τίμην τοῦ Christian Habicht. Athens. Thomas, R. 2006. ‘The intellectual milieu of Herodotus’, in The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, eds. C. Dewald and J. Marincola. Cambridge: 60 75. Thompson, H. A. 1988. ‘The palace of the giants’, in Frantz 1988: 95 116. Tiverios, M. A. 1987 90. ‘Παναθηναϊκὴ εἰκονογραφία’, Thrakike Epeterida 7: 285 95. Tiverios, M. 1991. ‘Παναθηναϊκοὶ ἀμφορεῖς ἀπὸ τὴν Πέλλα’, AEph 130: 15 44. Tiverios, M. 2001. ‘Panathenäen und Makedonen: Panathenäische Preisamphoren aus dem nordgriechischen Raum’, in Bentz and Eschbach 2001: 41 54. Tiverios, M. 2007. ‘Panathenaic amphoras’, in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007: 1 19.

Bibliography Tobin, J. 1993. ‘Some new thoughts on Herodes Atticus’s tomb, his stadium of 143/ 4 and Philostratus VS 2.550’, AJA 97: 81 9. Tobin, J. 1997. Herodes Attikos and the City of Athens: Patronage and Conflict under the Antonines. Amsterdam. Todd, S. C. 2000. Lysias. The Oratory of Classical Greece 2, series ed. M. Gagarin. Austin. Tracy, S. V. 1988. ‘Two Attic letter cutters of the third century: 286/5 235/4 bc’, Hesperia 57: 303 22. Tracy, S. V. 1989. ‘The archon Pleistainos’, Horos 7: 41 3. Tracy, S. V. 1990. Attic Letter Cutters of 229 to 86 bc. Berkeley. Tracy, S. V. 1991. ‘The Panathenaic festival and games: an epigraphic inquiry’, Nikephoros 4: 133 53. Tracy, S. V. 1995. Athenian Democracy in Transition: Attic Letter Cutters of 340 to 290 bc. Berkeley. Tracy, S. V. 2003a. Athens and Macedon: Attic Letter Cutters of 300 to 229 bc. Berkeley. Tracy, S. V. 2003b. ‘A major Athenian letter cutter ca. 410 to ca. 380: the Cutter of IG II2 17’, in Gestures: Essays in Ancient History, Literature and Philosophy Presented to Alan L. Boegehold on the Occasion of His Retirement and His Seventy Fifth Birthday, eds. G. W. Bakewell and J. P. Sickinger. Oxford: 351 63. Tracy, S. V. 2003c. ‘Antigonos Gonatas, king of Athens’, in Palagia and Tracy 2003: 56 60. Tracy, S. V. 2004. ‘Reflections on the Athenian ephebeia in the Hellenistic age’, in Das hellenistische Gymnasion, eds. D. Kah and P. Scholz. Berlin: 207 10. Tracy, S. V. 2007. ‘Games at the lesser Panathenaia?’, in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007: 53 7. Tracy, S. V. 2015a. ‘Athens in crisis: the second Macedonian War’, in Ancient Documents and Their Contents: First North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy (2011), eds. J. Bodel and N. Dimitrova. Leiden: 13 26. Tracy, S. V. 2015b. ‘Eurykleides I of Kephisia and the office of hoplite general’, in Matthaiou and Papazarkadas 2015: 291 8. Tracy, S. V. 2015c. ‘Agora I 6701: a Panathenaic victor list of ca. 190 bc’, Hesperia 84: 713 21. Tracy, S. V., and Habicht, C. 1991. ‘New and old Panathenaic victor lists’, Hesperia 60: 187 236. Traill, J. S. 1975. The Political Organization of Attica: A Study of the Demes, Trittyes and Phylai, and Their Representation in the Athenian Council. Hesperia Supplement 14. Princeton. Traill, J. S. 1986. Demos and Trittys: Epigraphical and Topographical Studies in the Organization of Attica. Toronto. Traill, J. S. 1994. ‘The Athenian archon Pleistainos’, ZPE 103: 109 14. Trapp, M. (ed. and trans.) 2017. Aelius Aristides I: Orations 1 2. Cambridge, MA.

493

494

Bibliography

Trombley, F. R. 1993. Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370 529 I. Leiden. Tsouklidou, D. 2001. ‘New Panathenaic amphorae of the Hellenistic period’, in Bentz and Eschbach 2001: 33 40. Tsouklidou, D. 2003. ‘A new white ground Panathenaic amphora’, MDAI(A) 118: 383 95. Tsouklidou, D. 2007. ‘Λευκοὶ παναθηναϊκοὶ ἀμφορεῖς καὶ μουσικοὶ ἀγώνες’, in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007: 109 16. Tsouklidou, D. 2008. ‘Παναθηναϊκὸς ἀμφορέας πρώιμων ῥωμαϊκῶν χρόνων’, in Ἡ Ἀθήνα κατὰ τὴ ῥωμαϊκὴ ἐποχή: πρόσφατες ἀνακαλύψεις, νέες ἔρευνες, ed. S. Vlizos. Mouseio Benaki Supplement 4. Athens: 449 57. Tuci, P. A. 2011. ‘La datazione dell’Athenaion politeia pseudosenofontea: problemi metodologici e proposte interpretative’, in L’Athenaion politeia revisitata: Il punto su Pseudo Senofonte, eds. C. Bearzot, F. Landucci and L. Prandi. Milan: 29 71. Turner, J. C., and Reynolds, K. J. 2004. ‘The social identity perspective in inter group relations: theories, themes and controversies’, in Brewer and Hewstone 2004: 259 77. Tzachou Alexandri, O. (ed.) 1989. Mind and Body: Athletic Contests in Ancient Greece, Athens. Ullucci, D. 2011. ‘Contesting the meaning of animal sacrifice’, in Knust and Várhelyi 2011: 57 74. Ussher, R. G. (ed.) 1973. Aristophanes: Ecclesiazusae, Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford. Valavanis, P. D. 1990. ‘La proclamation des vainqueurs aux Panathénées: à propos d’amphores panathénaïques de Praisos’, BCH 114: 325 59. Valavanis, P. D. 1991. Παναθηναϊκοὶ ἀμφορεῖς ἀπὸ τὴν Ἐρέτρια: συμβολὴ στὴν ἀττικὴ ἀγγειογραφία τοῦ 4ου π.Χ. αἰ. Athens. Valavanis, P. D. 2007a. ‘Δραματικοὶ άγώνες καὶ ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ στὴ νότια κλιτύ τῆς Ἀκροπόλεως’, in Palagia and Choremi Spetsieri 2007: 127 34. Valavanis, P. 2007b. ‘Panathenäische Preisamphoren aus Ephesos’, in Ephesos IX 2/ 3: Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos II: Funde klassischer bis römischer Zeit, eds. V. Mitsopoulos Leon and C. Lang Auinger. Vienna: 9 16. van Straten, F. T. 1995. Hierà Kalá: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece. Leiden. van Straten, F. 2005. ‘Ancient Greek animal sacrifice: gift, ritual slaughter, commu nion, food or what? Some thoughts on simple explanations of a complex ritual’, in Georgoudi, Koch Piettre and Schmidt 2005: 15 29. Venuti, L. 2001. ‘Anfore panatenaiche del Pittore di Kleophrades e della sua cerchia nel Museo Archeologico di Firenze’, in Bentz and Eschbach 2001: 65 71. Vernant, J. P. 1981. ‘Sacrificial and alimentary codes in Hesiod’s Myth of Prometheus’, in Myth, Religion and Society: Structuralist Essays by M. Detienne, L. Gernet, J. P. Vernant and P. Vidal Naquet, ed. R. L. Gordon. Cambridge: 57 79.

Bibliography

Vernant, J. P. 1982. Myth and Society in Ancient Greece. London. Vernant, J. P. 1989. ‘At man’s table: Hesiod’s foundation myth of sacrifice’, in Detienne and Vernant 1989: 21 86. Versnel, H. S. 2011. Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology. Leiden. Vian, F. 1951. Répertoire des Gigantomachies figurées dans l’art grec et romain. Paris. Vian, F. 1952. La guerre des Géants: Le mythe avant l’époque hellénistique. Paris. Vian, F., with Moore, M. B. 1988. ‘Gigantes’, in LIMC IV: Eros Herakles. Zurich: 191 270. Vlassopoulos, K. 2015. ‘Ethnicity and Greek history: re examining our assumptions’, BICS 58.2: 1 13. Völker, H. (ed. and trans.) 2003. Himerios: Reden und Fragmente. Einführung, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Wiesbaden. von Brauchitsch, G. 1910. Die Panathenäischen Preisamphoren. Leipzig. von den Hoff, R. 2003. ‘Tradition and innovation: portraits and dedications on the early Hellenistic Akropolis’, in Palagia and Tracy 2003: 173 85. von Heintze, H. 1993. ‘Athena Polias am Parthenon als Ergane, Hippia, Parthenos’, Gymnasium 100: 385 418. Vos, M. F. 1986. ‘Aulodic and auletic contests’, in Enthousiasmos: Essays in Greek and Related Pottery Presented to J. M. Hemelrijk, eds. H. A. G. Brijder, A. A. Drukker and C. W. Neeft. Allard Pierson Series 6. Amsterdam: 122 30. Wachsmann, S. 2012. ‘Panathenaic ships: the iconographic evidence’, Hesperia 81: 237 66. Walbank, F. W. 1979. A Historical Commentary on Polybius III: Commentary on Books XIX XL. Oxford. Walker, H. J. 1995. Theseus and Athens. Oxford. Watson, J. 2010. ‘The origin of metic status at Athens’, CCJ 56: 259 78. Waywell, G. B. 1967. ‘A four horse chariot relief of the fifth century bc’, ABSA 62: 19 26. Weir, R. 2004. Roman Delphi and Its Pythian Games. Oxford. Wescoat, B. D., and Levitan, R. 2017. ‘Seeing the Parthenon frieze: notes from Nashville’, in Greek Art in Context: Archaeological and Art Historical Perspectives, ed. D. Rodríguez Pérez. Abingdon: 57 72. Wesenberg, B. 1995. ‘Panathenäische Peplosdedikation und Arrhephorie: zur Thematik des Parthenonfrieses’, JDAI 110: 149 78. West, A. B., and Woodward, A. M. 1938. ‘Studies in Attic treasure records, II’, JHS 58: 69 89. West, M. L. 1992. Ancient Greek Music. Oxford. West, M. L. 2010. ‘Rhapsodes at festivals’, ZPE 173: 1 13. Wheeler, E. L. 1982. ‘Hoplomachia and Greek dances in arms’, GRBS 23: 223 33. Whitehead, D. 1977. The Ideology of the Athenian Metic. PCPhS Supplement 4. Cambridge.

495

496

Bibliography Whitehead, D. 1986. ‘The ideology of the Athenian metic: some pendants and a reappraisal’, PCPhS 32: 145 58. Whitehead, D. (trans.) 2000. Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches, Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford. Whitehead, D. 2002. ‘Observations on ἀδηφαγία’ RhM 145: 175 86. Whitmarsh, T. 2010a. ‘Thinking local’, in Whitmarsh 2010b: 1 16. Whitmarsh, T. (ed.) 2010b. Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World. Cambridge. Wiemer, H. U. 2011. ‘Von der Bürgerschule zum aristokratischen Klub? Die athenische Ephebie in der römischen Kaiserzeit’, Chiron 41: 487 537. Wijma, S. M. 2014. Embracing the Immigrant: The Participation of Metics in Athenian Polis Religion (5th 4th Century bc). Historia Einzelschriften 233. Stuttgart. Wilkins, J. 1993. Euripides: Heraclidae, with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford. Will, E. 1984. ‘The formation of the Hellenistic kingdoms’, in The Cambridge Ancient History VII.1: The Hellenistic World, 2nd ed., eds. F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin, M. W. Frederiksen and R. M. Ogilvie. Cambridge: 101 17. Williams, S., and Friell, G. 1994. Theodosius: The Empire at Bay. London. Wilson, N. G. 2007b. Aristophanea: Studies on the Text of Aristophanes. Oxford. Wilson, P. 2000. The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia: The Chorus, the City and the Stage. Cambridge. Wilson, P. 2007a. ‘Performance in the Pythion: the Athenian Thargelia’, in P. Wilson 2007b: 150 82. Wilson, P. (ed.) 2007b. The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies. Oxford. Wilson, P. 2009. ‘Tragic honours and democracy: neglected evidence for the politics of the Athenian Dionysia’, CQ 59: 8 29. Wilson, P., and Csapo, E. 2012. ‘From chorêgia to agônothesia: evidence for the administration and finance of the Athenian theatre in the late fourth century bc’, in Greek Drama IV: Text, Contexts, Performance, eds. D. Rosenbloom and J. Davidson. Oxford: 300 21. Winkler, J. J., and Zeitlin, F. I. (eds.) 1990. Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in Its Social Context. Princeton. Wohl, V. 1996. ‘Εὐσεβείας ἕνεκα καὶ φιλοτιμίας: hegemony and democracy at the Panathenaia’, C&M 47: 25 88. Woodhead, A. G. 1997. Agora XVI: Inscriptions: The Decrees. Princeton. Woodward, A. M. 1940. ‘Two Attic treasure records’, in Athenian Studies Presented to William Scott Ferguson, ed. H. Milford. HSPh Supplement 1. Cambridge, MA: 377 407.

Bibliography Woolf, G. 1997. ‘Polis religion and its alternatives in the Roman provinces’, in Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion, eds. H. Cancik and J. Rüpke, Tübingen: 71 84. Worchel, S., and Coutant, D. 2004. ‘It takes two to tango: relating group identity to individual identity within the framework of group development’, in Brewer and Hewstone 2004: 182 202. Ziehen, L. 1949. ‘Panathenaia’, RE 18.2. Stuttgart: cols. 457 93.

497

Index Locorum

Literary Texts

498

Claudius Aelianus Varia Historia 3.38, 53 6.1, 126, 166, 327 8.2, 175 13.14, 176 Aischines 2.147, 255 2.167, 96, 121 2.61, 328 3.52, 328 Aischines Socraticus Miltiades fr. 76 (Giannantoni), 118, 248 Aischylos Choephoroi 684, 127 Eumenides 292 6, 46 1011, 127 1018, 127 Persae 319, 127 Septem contra Thebas 384 5, 55 Supplices 609, 127 994, 127 Akusilaos (FGrHist 2) F30, 69 Ammonius De adfinium vocabulorum differentia 247 s.v. ἰσοτελὴς καὶ μέτοικος, 124 Andokides 1.28, 104 1.96 8, 77, 251 3.7, 230 [Andokides] 4.42, 198 Androtion (FGrHist 324) F2, 51

Antiphon 6.11, 205 Apollodoros Bibliotheke 1.7.3, 69 1.9.4, 69 3.14.1, 69 3.14.6, 52, 67 3.15.1, 70 3.15.4 5, 69 3.15.5, 69 Apollodoros (FGrHist 244) F44, 154, 225 Apostolios 1.99, 159 14.6, 29, 52, 73 15.75, 124, 264 Aelius Aristeides Orations 1, 178, 179, 214 1.36 8, 332 1.43, 53, 70 1.87, 69 1.88, 70 1.92 184, 134 1.379, 68 1.404, 135, 160 22.4, 332 22.6, 134 37.14, 53 Aristophanes Acharnians 253 4, 260 502 6, 325, 326 965, 55 Birds 11, 177 94, 55 826 8, 135 877 80, 153, 289 1549 52, 125, 166, 267, 268, 327 Clouds 14 16, 188 28, 192

Literary Texts

69 70, 140, 192, 347 386 7, 148 987 9, 46, 197 Ekklesiazousai 728 45, 125, 140 730 1, 260 Frogs 369, 327 1087 98, 198, 199 Knights 225 6, 230 565 8, 158 Lysistrata 630 5, 77 638 48, 260 641 7, 123 Peace 1173, 55 Wasps 438, 69 540 4, 124 fr. 758 (PCG), 186 Aristotle Athenaion Politeia 4.3, 229 7.3 4, 216 14.4, 57, 217 18.1 6, 123 18.2, 122, 264 18.2 6, 77 18.3, 118, 119, 216 18.4, 80, 120 19.2, 6 19.6, 6 23.4 5, 129 30.2, 229 31.1, 229 38.2, 231 42.1 2, 201, 302 42.2 5, 121 43.1, 116 49.3, 132, 158, 374 54.7, 107, 120 56.3, 205 57.1, 198 58.1, 77, 78, 153, 328 60.1, 119, 132, 135, 157, 171, 178, 185, 366, 367, 374 60.2 3, 374 60.3, 179, 198, 363, 365, 366, 367 61.1 6, 109 61.3, 95 62.2, 367 63.3, 229

Peplos fr. 637 (Rose), 41, 332 Politics 1277b13 16, 36 Arrian Anabasis 1.16.7, 162 3.16.7 8, 77 7.19.2, 77 Athenaeus 4.168f, 187 5.187f, 183, 272 5.216c d, 123 5.216d e, 183, 272 9.407a b, 177 14.618a, 177 15.695a b, no. 10, 77, 78 15.695a b, no. 12, 77, 78 15.695a b, no. 13, 77, 78 Cicero De oratore 3.34, 176 Pro Milone 80, 77, 78 Codex Theodosianus 16.10.2, 7 16.10.4, 7 16.10.4 7, 7 16.10.9, 7 16.10.10 11, 7 16.10.12, 7 16.10.13, 7 Damascius Life of Isidore fr. 273, 8 Deinarchos 16 fr. 3, 198, 363, 365 16 fr. 5, 121, 123, 126, 264, 307 Demetrios of Phaleron (FGrHist 228) F5 (fr. 146 Wehrli), 124, 126, 127, 268, 327 Demosthenes 19.280, 77, 78 20.21, 150 20.30, 296 20.64, 296 21.8 10, 328 21.156, 149, 151, 152, 200, 240, 242, 264 21.206, 328 22 hyp. 1.1, 229 39.7, 150, 205, 329 57.22 5, 240

499

500

Index Locorum

Demosthenes (cont.) 57.28, 240 57.30 1, 240 57.35 6, 240 57.40, 240 57.42, 240 57.44 5, 240 57.52, 240 57.67, 240 60.13, 328 60.27, 69 60.28, 70 60.36, 328 [Demosthenes] 59.104, 289 59.104 6, 289 61.25, 53 61.28, 353 61.28 9, 354 Dexippos (FGrHist 100) F28, 207 Diodoros 4.29.2, 69 4.43.3, 69 11.80.1 6, 204, 230 14.5.6, 265 18.74.3, 224 20.45.1 46.1, 285 20.46.2, 101, 158, 205, 223 Diogenes Laertius 1.57, 175, 176 2.141, 162 3.56, 178, 179 Diogenianos 2.7, 159 8.12, 124, 264 Dionysios of Halikarnassos Antiquitates Romanae 7.72.7, 45 7.73.2 3, 354 14.2.1, 70 Eratosthenes Katasterismoi 13, 51, 53, 54, 67, 149 Etymologicum Magnum s.v. ἀποβάτης, 353 s.v. ἀρχιθεωρός, 151 s.v. ἀσκοφορεῖν, 125, 264, 327 s.v. διφροφόροι, 125, 166, 267, 327 s.v. ἐπίβοιον καὶ ἐπιβόϊον, 137, 152 s.v. ἡνίοχος, 355 s.v. θαλλοφόρος, 124, 264

s.v. τοπεῖον, 132 s.v. Χαλκεῖα, 101 Eudokia De S. Cypriano 2.20 1, 348 Eupolis fr. 246 (PCG), 289 Euripides Erechtheus, 69 fr. 370.90 4, 70 Hecuba 466 73, 42, 45, 158, 348 Heraklidai 777 83, 99, 261 778 80, 105 Hercules furens 908, 42 Ion 10, 69 20 4, 67 206 11, 42 209 11, 46 260, 69 267 82, 67 277, 69 433, 69 546, 69 725, 69 987 95, 50 999 1000, 67 999 1008, 67 1106, 69 1163 4, 69 1220, 69 1528 9, 58 Iphigeneia in Tauris 221 4, 42, 45 Kyklops 5 8, 42 fr. 925 (TrGF), 54, 67 Eusebius Chronica s.v. Olympiad 53.3 (Helm 102b), 5 s.v. Olympiad 131.1 (Helm 131), 163, 225 s.v. Olympiad 131.2 (Schoene II 120), 163, 225 s.v. year of Abraham 546 (Helm 46b), 53 s.v. year of Abraham 546 (Schoene II 33), 53 Fabius Pictor (FGrHist 809) F13b FRH 1 F2, 354 Fulgentius Mythologiae tres libri 2.14, 53

Literary Texts

Harmodios skolia 893 (PMG), 77, 78 895 (PMG), 77, 78 896 (PMG), 77, 78 Harpokration s.v. ἀδηφάγους τριήρεις, 186 s.v. ἀποβάτης, 53, 135, 191, 347 s.v. ἀρρηφορεῖν, 101 s.v. αὐτόχθονες, 67 s.v. Βοηδρόμια, 69 s.v. ἐπίβοιον, 137, 152 s.v. εὐανδρία, 198 s.v. κανηφόροι, 65, 122, 123, 148, 264 s.v. λαμπάς, 107, 198, 203, 329 s.v. Παναθήναια, 5, 51 s.v. Πανδιονίς, 67 s.v. πέπλος, 157 s.v. σκαφηφόροι, 121, 123, 124, 126, 127, 264, 268, 307, 327 s.v. Σκίρον, 71 s.v. τοπεῖον, 132 s.v. Φορβαντεῖον, 69 Heliodoros Aithiopika 1.10.1, 120, 132, 133, 144, 157 Hellanikos (FGrHist 4) F22, 5, 239 Hellanikos (FGrHist 323a) F2, 51 F3, 69 F22a, 69 Hermeias In Platonis Phaedrum 231e (Lucarini and Moreschini 40, 14 19), 199 231e (Lucarini and Moreschini 40, 16 19), 203, 275 Herodotos 1.60.2 5, 57, 217 5.55, 239 5.55 56.2, 77 5.57.1, 239 6.103.2, 187 6.105.3, 203 6.111.2, 149, 151, 152, 153, 288 7.189, 69 8.3.2, 129 8.55, 68, 70 Hesiod Theogony 535 57, 18 Hesychios s.v. ἀδηφάγοι, 186

s.v. βασιλίδες, 347 s.v. διφροφόροι, 125, 166, 267, 327 s.v. Ἐρεχθεύς, 70 s.v. θαλλοφόρος, 124 s.v. οἰκουρὸν ὄφιν, 70 s.v. σκαφηφόροι, 124, 149, 264 s.v. ὑδριαφόροι, 126 Himerios Orations 47.12, 133 47.12 13, 118 47.12 16, 132, 133, 134, 144, 157, 160, 228 47.13, 257 47.16, 133 Homer Iliad 1.37 52, 19 2.547 8, 68 6.293 311, 19 Hyginus De astronomia 2.13, 52, 53, 54, 149 Hypereides Euxenippos 3, 121 fr. 170, 67 Isaios 5.36, 197, 360 6.14, 104 7.36, 329 Isokrates 4.157, 327 8.82 3, 325, 326 12.126, 67 12.193, 69 Istros (FGrHist 334) F2, 203 F4, 75 F56, 177 Justin Epitome 25.1.2 2.7, 162 Kallimachos fr. 384.35 9 (Pfeiffer), 182 Kleidemos (FGrHist 323) F15, 57, 217 Kratinos fr. 33 (PCG), 124 Lexeis Rhetorikai s.v. ἀποβατῶ (198, 11 Bekker), 353

501

502

Index Locorum

Lexeis Rhetorikai (cont.) s.v. ἀρχιθεωρός (199, 17 Bekker), 151 s.v. ἀσκοφορεῖν (214, 3 Bekker), 125, 264, 327 s.v. κανηφόροι (270, 32 Bekker), 123, 264 s.v. μετοίκων λειτουργίαι (280, 1 Bekker), 127 s.v. σκαφηφορεῖν (304, 27 Bekker), 127 Livy 31.14.6 15.5, 251 Lucian De saltatione (45) 39, 67 Dialogi deorum (79) 13, 47 Philopseudes (34) 3, 67 18, 77 Lykourgos Leokrates 98 9, 69 102, 175, 176, 178 fr. 6.8 (Conomis), 152 Lysias 2.80, 328 12.6 34, 265 14, 231 15, 231 16, 231 21.1, 1, 5, 6, 47, 197, 221, 360 21.1 5, 369 21.2, 5, 104 21.4, 1, 5, 47, 106, 197 21.5, 199 26.10, 231 Lysimachides (FGrHist 366) F3, 71 Marcellinus Vita Thucydidis 3 4, 5, 239 Marinus Vita Procli 13.10 17, 8 Marmor Parium (FGrHist 239). See IG XII.5 444 Menander fr. 147 (PCG), 124 fr. 384 (PCG), 5, 24, 87, 95 Origen Contra Celsum 6.42, 42, 160, 169

P.Oxyrhynchus 222, 181 2739, 50 2889, 118 Patmian scholia on Demosthenes 20.21, 149, 151, 152, 240, 242, 264, 327 57.43, 198, 199, 203 Pausanias 1.2.4, 118 1.2.6, 67 1.5.2, 69, 70 1.5.3, 67 1.5.5, 326 1.8.5, 77 1.14.6, 67 1.26.5, 70, 71, 87 1.27.4, 69 1.28.4, 69 1.29.1, 132, 133, 134, 144, 157 1.36.4, 69 1.38.3, 69 2.6.5, 69 2.8.6, 127, 226 2.25.6, 69 3.6.6, 163, 225 3.18.13, 68 5.4.5, 40 5.6.7 8, 111 5.7.6 8.5, 40 5.8.10, 187 5.9.2, 188, 355 6.10.6 7, 187 6.20.8 9, 111 6.20.15 19, 40 7.26.13, 176 8.2.1, 73 8.53.10, 162 9.19.1, 69 9.30.1, 69 10.10.1, 70 10.10.1 2, 326 10.29.6, 69 Pausanias Atticista s.v. συστομώτερον σκάφης, 124, 125, 264 Pherekrates fr. 51 (PCG), 257 fr. 63 (PCG), 124 fr. 212 (PCG), 186 Pherekydes (FGrHist 3) F2, 5, 239 Philemon Emporos, 116, 157

Literary Texts

Philippides fr. 25.5 6 (PCG), 158 Philochoros (FGrHist 328) F8, 65, 122, 123, 148, 264 F9, 65, 124 F10, 137, 152 F11, 69 F13, 69 F39, 230 F105, 69 Philostratos Vita Apollonii 4.22.2, 149, 152 7.4.3, 78, 227 Vitae sophistarum 2.549, 89 2.550, 132, 133, 134, 144, 157, 162, 280 Photios Bibliotheke 186.142a b, 52 Lexikon s.v. ἀδηφάγοι, 186 s.v. ἀδηφάγον ἅρμα, 186 s.v. ἀδηφάγους τριήρεις, 186 s.v. ἀποβατῶν ἀγών, 53, 135, 191, 347, 353 s.v. ἀρχιθεωρός, 151 s.v. βασιλίδες, 347 s.v. ἐπίβοιον, 152 s.v. ἱστὸς καὶ κεραία, 133 s.v. κανηφόροι, 65, 122, 123, 148, 264 s.v. λαμπάδος, 198, 203 s.v. λαμπάς, 107, 329 s.v. Μεταγειτνιῶν, 76 s.v. Παναθήναια, 5, 29, 52, 73, 181 s.v. πέμπειν, 5 s.v. πέπλος, 157 s.v. σκάφας, 124, 264 s.v. σκαφηφόροι, 121, 123, 124, 126, 127, 264, 268, 307, 327 s.v. συστομώτερον σκάφης, 124, 264 s.v. τοπεῖον, 132 s.v. ὑδριαφόροι, 126 Pindar Isthmian 1.57, 328 2.19 22, 187 4.25 7, 187 Nemean 10.33 7, 182 10.35 7, 29 4.18 19, 183

Olympian 1.88 96, 40 10.24 30, 40 10.43 50, 40 10.55 9, 40 13.37 9, 182, 13.110, 328 6.64 70, 40 7.80 2, 182 9.88 90, 183 9.88 94, 181 9.99, 328 Pythian 7.4, 187 fr. 253, 67, 68 Plato Cratylus 406d12 407a2, 46 Critias 110a7 8, 67 Euthyphro 6b7 c4, 42 6c2 4, 132 Ion 530a1 b4, 177 Leges 7.796b6 c2, 46 Menexenos 249b3 6, 328 Parmenides 127a7 9, 116 Respublica 1.327a1 b2, 98 328a1 b1, 98 [Plato] Hipparchos 228b4 c3, 175 229c, 122 Plautus Mercator 64 8, 116 66 7, 157 Pliny Naturalis historia 7.202, 53 34.17, 77 36.18, 43 Plutarch Moralia 310d, 69 Alexander 16.17 18, 162 Aratos 34.5 6, 127, 226

503

504

Index Locorum

Plutarch (cont.) Aristeides 25.3, 129 Camillus 19.8, 222 Demetrios 8.4 7, 224 8.4 9.4, 285 8.7, 127 10.1 2, 285 10.4 6, 158 10.6, 205, 223 12.3, 118, 158 Demosthenes 28.1, 222 Perikles 12.1, 129 13.11, 23, 175, 176, 178, 216, 220, 317 Phokion 20.1 3, 191, 192 37.1 2, 224 Theseus 19.4, 69 24.3, 74 [Plutarch] Vitae decem oratorum 843b, 70 843c, 70 843e, 70 850f 851c, 236 851d f, 236, 251 852b, 123 Polemon FHG III 117 fr. 6, 198, 203 Pollux Onomastikon 3.55, 126 4.83, 177 7.77, 347 7.85, 347 8.91, 78 Polybios 26.25.1 26.8, 251 28.19.4, 131 Proklos In Platonis Parmenidem commentarii 1.643, 8, 42 In Platonis Timaeum commentarii 1.9a b, 4, 8 1.9b, 8 1.26e, 8 1.26e 27a, 42, 102 1.27a, 8

Proxenos (FGrHist 425) F2, 69 Scholia on Aischines 1.10, 200 Scholia on Aelius Aristeides Orations 1.8 Dindorf III, 17 18, 70 1.13 Dindorf III, 28, 70 1.19 Dindorf III, 37, 70 1.37 Dindorf III, 55 6, 332 1.38 Dindorf III, 56, 332 1.43 Dindorf III, 62, 70 1.85 Dindorf III, 109 10, 70 1.87 Dindorf III, 111 12, 70 1.87 Dindorf III, 113, 70 1.350 Dindorf III, 317, 70 1.354 Dindorf III, 321, 70 1.362 Dindorf III, 323, 5, 41, 42, 44, 51, 70, 332 1.404 Dindorf III, 342 3, 42, 132, 133, 144, 157, 158 Scholia on Apollonius Rhodius 1.97 10, 69 1.211 215c, 69 Scholia on Aristophanes Birds 11a, 177 827, 133, 135, 158 880b, 153, 289 1551a, 125, 166, 267, 327 1552a, 166, 267 Clouds, Aldine edition 37, 119, 218 Clouds, recentiora 386a, 116 386b, 116, 149, 151, 152, 264 988f, 47 Clouds, Thomas Triclinius 70c, 126 386b, 148 Clouds, Tzetzes 14a, 187, 188 28, 74 386, 116, 149, 151, 152, 264 989b, 47 Clouds, vetera 15, 187 28a, 74 386a, 116, 148, 149, 151, 152, 264 971a, 177, 178 988a, 47, 197 1005b, 29 1468a, 69

Literary Texts

Frogs, Tzetzes 135a, 106, 198, 203, 329 1087, 106, 198, 203, 329 Frogs, vetera 129b c, 107 129c, 198, 203, 329 369, 327 1087a, 107, 198, 203, 329 Knights 566a, 42, 102, 118, 132, 133, 135, 144, 157, 159 566c, 102, 132, 133, 135, 144, 157 Peace 1019 20, 73 Wasps 544b, 65, 124, 264 Scholia on Demosthenes 19.303, 69 20.94, 70 21.156, 200 24.8, 70 24.18, 67, 70 Scholia on Euripides Hecuba, recentiora 469, 158 Hecuba, vetera 467, 42, 135, 157, 158, 257, 348 468, 42 472, 42, 43 Medea 825, 70 Orestes 1648, 69 Phoenissae 854, 69 Scholia on Germanicus Aratea 157 60, 52, 149 Scholia on Homer Iliad 2.547, 70 Odyssey 11.321, 69 14.533, 69 Scholia on Pindar Olympian 9.99, 332 13.37 38, 182, Pythian 5.10b, 53 12, inscr., 175 Scholia on Plato Parmenides 127a, 29, 52, 73, 181

Respublica 1.327a, 4, 42, 102, 135 Timaeus 23e, 67 Scholia on Thucydides 2.15.2, 76 Servius Commentary on Vergil’s Georgics 3.113, 53 [Simonides] 43 (Page, FGE, pp. 262 4), 182 43.3 4 (Page, FGE, pp. 262 4), 181 fr. 155 Bergk, lines 3 4, 181, 182 Sophokles Ajax 201 2, 68 Staphylos (FGrHist 269) F1, 152 Stesichoros 56 (233) (PMG), 47 fr. 270a (Finglass), 47 Strattis fr. 31 (PCG), 132 fr. 73 (PCG), 42, 158, 348 Suda s.v. ἀδηφάγους τριήρεις, 186 s.v. Ἀρχιάδας, 8 s.v. ἀσκοφορεῖν, 125, 264, 327 s.v. Βοηδρόμια, 69 s.v. δήμαρχοι, 119 s.v. διφροφόρος, 125, 166, 267, 327 s.v. ἐπίβοιον, 137, 152 s.v. κανηφόροι, 65, 122, 123, 148, 264 s.v. Κεραμεικός, 107, 329 s.v. κουροτρόφος γῆ, 66 s.v. λαμπάδος, 107, 198, 203, 329 s.v. Παναθήναια, 29, 52, 73, 181 s.v. παρθένοι, 69, s.v. πέμπειν, 5 s.v. πέπλος, 42, 102, 118, 132, 133, 135, 144, 157 s.v. σκαφηφόροι, 121, 123, 124, 126, 127, 264, 268, 307, 327 s.v. συστομώτερον σκάφης, 124, 264 s.v. τετραλογία, 178, 179 s.v. τοπεῖον, 132 s.v. Φορβαντεῖον, 69 s.v. Φρῦνις, 177, 178 s.v. Χαλκεῖα, 101 Synagoge s.v. ἀδηφάγον ἅρμα (MS B), 186

505

506

Index Locorum

Synagoge (cont.) s.v. ἀδηφάγους τριήρει (MS B), 186 s.v. ἀποβατῶν ἀγών (MS B), 53, 135, 191, 347, 353 s.v. ἀρχιθεωρός (MS B), 151 Theophrastos Nomoi fr. 15 (Szegedy Maszak), 53, 135, 191, 347 fr. 654 (Fortenbaugh), 124, 264 Theopompos (FGrHist 115) F88, 204, 230 F104, 153, 289 Thrasyllos FHG III 504 5 fr. 6, 178, 179 Thucydides 1.20.1, 118 1.20.2, 77, 119, 216 1.25.2 4, 128 1.95.1 97.1, 129 1.114.1 2, 230 2.6.4, 288 2.13.8, 230 2.15.1, 69 2.15.2, 73 2.21.1, 230 2.71.1 78.4, 289 2.72.2, 288 2.73.1 3, 288 3.52.1 68.5, 289 3.104.3 4, 291 5.47.10, 117 6.30.1, 104 6.53.3 59.1, 77 6.54.2, 240 6.56.1, 122 6.56.1 2, 259 6.56.1 58.2, 123 6.56.2, 6, 80, 120, 218 6.57.1, 119, 216 6.57.1 3, 118 6.58.1, 120 7.50.4, 177 8.1.1, 177 8.14.2 15.1, 153, 289 Valerius Maximus 2.10.ext. 1, 77 Vergil Georgics 3.113 14, 53

[Vergil] Ciris 21 35, 42, 133 29 34, 160, 169 31 2, 158 35, 132 Xenophon De equitum magistro 3.10 13, 200 3.11, 200 3.13, 200 De vectigalibus 4.51 2, 199 Hellenika 2.3.21, 265 2.3.41, 265 2.3.48, 231 2.4.2 10, 231 2.4.24 6, 231 2.4.31 2, 231 3.1.4, 231 Memorabilia 1.2.35, 229 3.5.10, 68 Symposium 1.2, 183, 272 1.2 4, 123 4.17, 123, 264 [Xenophon] Athenaion Politeia 2.10, 219 3.4, 104, 105, 200, 329, 360 3.5, 326 Zenobios 1.56, 159 5.95, 124, 264 Inscriptions Agora XV 78, See IG II3.1 900 Agora XVI 181, See IG II3.1 881 188, See IG II3.1 908 192, 51 203, 200, 205, 363 208, See IG II3.1 997 284, See IG II3.1 1329 310, 235, 237, 294, 296 Agora XVIII C159, See IG II3.4 263

Inscriptions C195, See IG II3.4 578 C197, 172, 183, 185, 380 9 C205, See IG II3.4 628 C210, 118 H333, 123, 264 Badoud, Fincker and Moretti 2015 16 378, 183 379, 183 FdD III.4 216, 183 477, 178 Gonnoi II 108, 151 109, See IG II3.1 1145 110, 151 I.Anazarbos 25, 183 I.Aphr. 12.920, 183 I.Delos 1497bis, See IG II3.1 1258 1498, 130, 178 1628, 379 2552, 178, 179 I.Eleusis 1, See IG I3 988 3, See IG I3 991 6, See IG I3 989 28a, See IG I3 78a 64, See IG II3.4 584 99, See IG II2 1187 177, See IG II2 1672 227, 330 228, 330 356, See SEG XLVII 226 463, See IG II2 4071 I.Ephesos 1613, 183 2072, 183 IG I3 7, 159 14, 120, 164 34, 129, 151, 152, 157, 160, 264, 325 35, 255 46, 128, 150, 151, 152, 157, 160, 264, 284, 285, 326 52, 116 61, 117, 326

71, 117, 128, 129, 151, 152, 157, 160, 264, 287, 326 78a, 327 82, 107, 198, 329 244, 90, 127, 149, 151, 152, 228, 240, 264 258, 149, 151, 152, 228, 240, 264 259, 129 292, 116 296, 116 300, 116 305, 116 309, 116 317, 116 321, 116 325, 116 329, 116 333, 116 342, 124 343, 116 351, 116 355, 116 369, 116 370, 369 375, 120, 149, 151, 152 507, 120, 216 508, 120, 216 523 5, 328 525, 329 597, 182, 186 666, 175 754, 175 873, 70 880, 187 893, 182 957 62, 325 963 6, 325 988, 328 989, 328 991, 328 1386, 181 1469, 187, 216 IG II 967, 184 IG II2 350, 328, 372 456, 130, 161, 264, 285, 326 492, 234 641, See IG II3.1 844 657, See IG II3.1 877 661, See IG II3.1 915 665, See IG II3.1 917 666, See IG II3.1 918 668, See IG II3.1 920

507

508

Index Locorum IG II2 (cont.) 674, See IG II3.1 900 677, See IG II3.1 1034 682, See IG II3.1 985 686 + 687, See IG II3.1 912 688, See IG II3.1 923 689, See IG II3.1 903 690, See IG II3.1 953 749, See IG II3.1 1035 776, See IG II3.1 1026 780, See IG II3.1 995 781, See IG II3.1 1001 784, See IG II3.1 1022 793, 163 807, See IG II3.1 1188 834, See IG II3.1 1160 847, See IG II3.1 1164 949, 154 956, 193, 235, 236, 237, 238, 294, 296, 326, 330, 331, 368, 376 957, 193, 235, 236, 237, 238, 294, 326, 331, 368 958, 193, 235, 236, 237, 238, 294, 326, 331, 368 959, 331 960, 236, 331 961, 236, 331 962, 331 963, 235, 236, 237, 238, 294, 326, 331 964, 331 965, 331 966, 294, 295, 296, 299 968, 1, 123, 132, 149, 151, 152, 157, 162, 227, 260, 264, 368, 370, 375 983, 294, 295, 296, 299, 326 992, See IG II3.1 1372 1006, 121, 122, 152, 199, 235, 236, 237, 278, 279, 294, 330 1008, 121, 199, 235, 236, 237, 278, 279, 294, 327, 330 1009, 89, 95, 121, 122, 235, 236, 237, 278, 279, 294 1011, 154, 199, 235, 236, 237, 278, 279, 294, 330 1028, 122, 199, 235, 236, 237, 278, 279, 294, 327, 330 1029, 122, 199, 278, 279, 330 1030, 278, 279, 327 1034, 96, 101 1041, 278, 279 1043, 278, 279 1078, 280 1138, 104, 105, 106, 329, 360

1187, 199 1225, 225 1273, 362 1330, 150 1385, 157, 161, 177 1386, 124 1388, 124, 157, 161, 177 1389, 124, 177 1390, 124 1393, 124, 157, 161, 177 1400, 157, 161, 177 1401, 124 1407, 124, 157, 161, 177 1424a, 157, 161 1425, 157, 161 1436, 157, 161 1437, 161 1438, 157, 161 1461, 6 1479, 163, 234 1485, 161 1486, 161 1496, 88, 325 1628, 1, 133 1672, 181, 328 1705, 373 1942, 96, 101 1943, 96, 101 2090, 280 2245, 58 2312, 182 2313, 172, 180, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 194, 276, 330, 388 2314 + SEG XLI 114, 1, 172, 180, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 227, 232, 243, 296, 330, 351, 360, 380, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388 2315, 180, 183, 185, 276 2316, 172, 180, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 227, 276, 296, 330, 351, 360 2317 + SEG XLI 118, 172, 186, 187, 188, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 227, 330, 351, 353, 360 2854, See IG II3.4 292 2971, 53 2974, See IG II3.4 331 3000, 206, 232 3019, See IG II3.4 430 3022, See IG II3.4 545 3023, See IG II3.4 431 3026, See IG II3.4 434

Inscriptions 3058, See IG II3.4 538 3079, See IG II3.4 528 3081, See IG II3.4 532 3088, See IG II3.4 539 3126, See IG II3.4 584 3130, See IG II3.4 252 3131, See IG II3.4 588 3149, 272 3157, See IG II3.4 561 3163, See IG II3.4 614 3169/70, See IG II3.4 629 3198, See IG II3.4 1398 3477, See Agora XVIII H333 3535, 377 3538, 70 3669, 207 3769, 207 3779, See IG II3.4 594 3818, 6, 132, 133, 157, 228 3877, See IG II2 3149 4071, 70, 378 4224, 6 13262, See IG II2 3669 13281, See IG II2 3818 13283, See IG II2 4224 IG II3.1 298, 163, 295, 296 306, 328, 372 344, 328, 372 416, 153, 234 447, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 110, 120, 152, 220 469, 234 844, 234 857, 235, 368, 371 870, 296 875, 368 877, 132, 157, 163, 235, 236, 296, 368 881, 234, 328, 362, 372 899, 234 900, 234, 367 903, 154 908, 234 911, 132, 157, 224, 225, 234, 235, 236, 251, 296 912, 225 915, 154, 327 917, 234, 362 918, 362 920, 154, 362 923, 51 949, 364, 365 953, 154

985, 149, 151, 152, 205, 224, 234, 235, 236, 237, 251, 294, 296, 326, 362, 365, 368, 371 986, 199, 330 989, 163 990, 163 991, 163, 368, 370, 372, 373 995, 328, 368, 370, 372, 373 997, 294, 295, 296, 299, 326 1001, 328, 372 1002, 101, 256 1014, 372 1022, 153, 171, 174, 178, 180, 185, 367, 374 1023, 366, 370, 372, 373 1026, 101, 256 1034, 149, 151, 152, 162, 225, 235, 236, 237, 238, 294, 296, 373 1035, 368 1135, 236 1145, 130, 151, 155, 264, 293, 301, 307, 326 1147, 294, 295, 296, 299, 326 1150, 294, 295, 296, 299, 326 1160, 127, 368 1164, 154 1166, 199, 330 1176, 199, 278, 279, 300, 330 1178, 294, 295, 296, 299, 326 1182, 154 1188, 154 1189, 256 1218, 294, 295, 296 1239, 130, 151, 152, 155, 264, 286, 293, 301, 326 1256, 199, 235, 236, 237, 278, 279, 294, 300, 303, 326, 330 1258, 294, 295, 296, 299, 303, 326 1278, 294, 295, 296, 299, 303, 326 1281, 235, 236, 237, 294, 303, 326 1284, 328, 372 1290, 278, 279, 326 1291, 131 1292, 173, 235, 236, 237, 294, 296, 326 1298, 328, 372 1313, 122, 199, 278, 279, 326, 327, 330 1329, 154, 327 1331, 131 1362, 278, 279, 303, 326 1372, 327 IG II3.4 243, 200, 231, 358 251, 200, 358 252, 200, 329, 359, 363 263, 200

509

510

Index Locorum IG II3.4 (cont.) 265, 200, 329, 359, 363 292, 364, 365 331, 198 427, 198, 359 430, 6, 198, 359 431, 198, 359, 365See 433, 47, 197, 357 434, 47, 197, 357, 360, 363, 365 435, See SEG LIII 202 436 72, 325 473 96, 325 518 39, 362 528, 200, 205, 223, 225, 272, 361, 363, 364, 370, 371 532, 372 538, 325 539, 205 545, 198 561, 178, 206 578, 191, 222, 354, 359 581, 186 584, 188, 328 588, 183 594, 178 614, 183 628, 183 629, 178 1398, 134, 162, 207 IG VII 49, 207 IG XI.4 1164, 187 IG XII.4 453, 181 454, 181 521, 178, 179 938, 185, 378 939, 178, 378 IG XII.5 444, 51, 52, 77 IGUR 240, 183 I.Iasos 107, 378 108, 183, 378 I.Lindos 68, 53, 187 I.Magnesia 180, 184 I.Naples 49, 183 I.Oropos

520, 177, 180, 329 521, 180 523, 180 524, 180 525, 190 526, 180 527, 190 528, 180 529, 190 I.Priene 5, 1, 130, 151, 152, 264, 286, 326 45, See IG II3.1 1239 I.Rhamnous 7, 163 51, 339 I.Sardis 79, See SEG LIII 1355 Iscr. Cos EV 218, See IG XII.4 938 EV 234, See IG XII.4 521 I.Sinope 105, 183 IvO 166, 187 188, 187 237, 178 NGSL 1, 90, 152 Perrin Saminadayar 2007 T 26, See IG II2 1006 T 30, See IG II2 1009 T 32, See IG II2 1028 RO 22, 129 29, 129, 150, 151, 152, 157, 264, 284, 285, 326 37, 91, 137, 150, 151, 152, 239, 264 81, 85, 86 89, 121 Roueché, Performers 91, See I.Aph. 12.920 SEG XI 338, 182 XII 512, See I.Anazarbos 25 XIV 316, 178 XV 104, 122, 199, 235, 236, 237, 278, 279, 294, 326, 330 XXI 357, See IG II3.1 949 XXI 505, 207 XXI 525, 205, 232, 362, 364

Inscriptions

XXII 110, 278, 279, 327 XXII 111, 278, 279 XXIII 82, 157, 161, 177, 179 XXIII 103, See IG II3.4 433 XXVIII 60, See IG II3.1 911 XXIX 340, 178, 179 XXX 82, 207 XXXII 169, 373 XXXII 169 + XXXVIII 158, 371 XXXIII 115, See IG II3.1 1002 XXXIV 103, 197 XXXVII 712, 183 XXXIX 125, See IG II3.1 991 XLI 115, 53, 172, 178, 179, 183, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 227, 232, 296, 330, 351, 360, 380, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388 XLI 1407, 183 XLV 101, See IG II3.1 857 XLVI 167, 362, 364 XLVII 226, 377 L 55, 90, 149, 151, 152, 155, 228, 240, 264 LI 144, 362, 371, 372 LII 48 fr. 1, 71 fr. 3, 73, 152

fr. 9, 132, 149 LIII 120, See IG II3.1 899 LIII 130A, See IG II3.1 990 LIII 130B, See IG II3.1 989 LIII 143, 96, 100, 376 LIII 192, 29, 47, 50, 150, 172, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 197, 198, 199, 357, 358, LIII 197, See IG II3.4 243 LIII 198, See IG II3.4 251 LIII 202, 47, 105, 106, 357, 363 LIII 1355, 183 LIV 536, 178 LVI 230, See IG II3.4 427 LVI 1359, 206, 210, 312, 313 LVII 156, 205 LVII 270, See IG II3.4 581 LVIII 191, 377 LIX 411, 184, 378 Syll.3 1064, 184 TAM V.2 1368, 183, 184, 185

511

Index of Collections

512

Aiani Archaeological Museum 11123, 182 Aigina Archaeological Museum 332, 182 Alexandria Greek and Roman Museum 18.238, 182, 211 Amsterdam Allard Pierson Museum 1897, 184, 273 Apollonia Apollonia Excavations 1151, 183 Arezzo Museo Civico 1413, 57 Athens Agora Excavations I 5952, 89, 121 I 6701, 380 9 P 61, 187 P 109, 374 P 1893, 194 P 2071 + P 4340, 182 P 3798, 182 P 5911, 183 P 6901, 186 P 6901bis, 187 P 8522, 178, 374, 375 P 9529, 182 P 10007, 187 P 18008, 186 P 19531, 192 P 22926 + P 27371, 182 P 23034, 182 P 24750, 182 P 27556, 172 P 35996, 172 S 399, See IG II3.4 578 Akropolis Museum 120, 43 121, 43 141, 293, 658 + inventory 162, 424b, 43

1326, 192, 351 1338, See SEG LIII 202 EAM X 7038, 144 British School at Athens S 24, 187 Epigraphical Museum EM 12931, 157, 161 Kerameikos Excavations P 950, 144 PA 13, 186 PA 26, 186 PA 27, 186 PA 46, 187 PA 90, 193 PA 101, 186 PA 102, 186 PA 112 + PA 123 + PA 124 + PA 127, 192 PA 156, 182 PA 157, 187 PA 168, 182 PA 175, 186 PA 192, 182 PA 288, 186 PA 301, 186 PA 302, 186 PA 327, 186 PA 343, 180 PA 350, 188, 190, 206 PA 355, 186 PA 369, 186 PA 443, 182 PA 465, 186 PA 480, 182 PA 568, 193 PA 576 + PA 577 + PA 445, 182 PA 578, 186 PA 647, 182 PA 656, 182 PA 661, 186 PA 679 + PA 658, 187 PA 700, 187 PA 702, 179 PA 750, 186 PA 836, 186

Index of Collections

National Museum 451, 30, 185, 273 452, 187 455, 47 1733, 200 2468, 182, 183 20044, 31, 182 20045, 31, 179 20046, 179, 182 20047, 182 20048, 182 20049, 182 A 17934, 182 Akropolis 607, 43, 58, 135, 137, 140, 152, 159 Akropolis 612, 43 Akropolis 648, 43 Akropolis 921, 182 Akropolis 947, 176 Akropolis 1042, 182 Akropolis 1043, 182 Akropolis 1060, 175, 176 Akropolis 1113, 182, 374 Akropolis 1118, 182 Akropolis 1124, 183 Akropolis 1220, 135, 140, Akropolis 1244, 44 Akropolis 1538a, 44 Akropolis 1632, 44 Akropolis 2134, 43, 58 Akropolis 2211, 43 Akropolis 2298, 135, 140, Akropolis 2499, 44 Akropolis 2559, 44 Akropolis 2588, 44 Α΄ ΕΠΚΑ ΠΛ 863, 145 Γ΄ ΕΠΚΑ A 1918, 261 A 3866.1, 182 A 3883.2, 187 A 3884, 192 A 3885, 187 A 3889, 182 A 6103, 178, 375 A 6374, 182, 211 A 9659, 183 A 9661β, 183 A 9661γ, 183 A 10317, 186 A 16500 + A 16501, 178, 180 A 20817, 32

Austin Archer M. Huntington Art Gallery, University of Texas at Austin 1980.32, 175 Balagrai Antiquarium 2279, 182 Baltimore Museum of Art 1960.55.3, 185, 273 Walters Art Gallery 48.2107, 176 Basel Antiken Museum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig BS 494, 187 Cahn Collection HC 878, 187 Berlin Antikensammlung F 1716, 62 Staatliche Museen 3979, 187 3980, 172, 193 3981, 182 4950, 188 F 1686, 135, 140 F 1832, 182 F 1833, 182 F 2537, 67 F 3988, 48 Bochum Ruhr Universität S 1174, 127, 263 Bologna Museo Civico Archeologico 18039, 30, 183 18040, 182 Pell. Nr. 14, 175, 176 PU 198, side B, 182 Bonn Akademisches Kunstmuseum 43, 175 Boston Museum of Fine Arts 77.220 (R. 347), 59 99.520, 182 Boulogne Musée municipal 441, 182 Brussels Musée du Cinquantenaire A 1703, 182

513

514

Index of Collections

Cambridge Fitzwilliam Museum Lewis.103.15, 182 Cambridge, MA Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums 1925.30.124, 31 1959.128, 30, 183 1960.309, 182 1960.344, 198 Compiègne Musée Vivenel 987, 187 Copenhagen National Museum Chr. VIII 340, 55, Chr. VIII 797 (99), 182, 184 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 3606, 183 Corinth Corinth Excavations C 46 51, 186 Cyrene Archaeological Museum no inventory number, 179 Cyrene Museum 81 14, 313 317/31, 183 Sb 416.4, 187 Sb 416.6, 187 no inventory number, 182 Detroit Detroit Institute of Arts 50.193a, b, 182 Eleusis Eleusis Museum 2703, 193 no inventory number, 182 Eretria Archaeological Museum 14813, 182 14814, 182 Erlangen Antikensammlung der Universität I 517 a, 182 Ferrara Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Ferrara 9356, 187 44894 (T 57 C VP), 350

Florence Museo Archeologico Nazionale 94771, 187 94772, 182 94793 + 94795 + 94802 + 94808 + 94811, 187 97779, 187, 188 Frankfurt Liebieghaus Museum alter Plastik ST V2, 182 Geneva Chamay Collection no inventory number, 182, 183 Musée d’art et d’histoire MF 150, 182 MF 151, 182 Giessen Antikensammlung der Justus Liebig Universität S 131, 187 Halle Martin Luther Universität 560, 30, 182, 184 Hanover, NH Hood Museum of Art, Dartmouth College C.959.53, 182 Havana Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes 236, 182 Heidelberg Antikenmuseum der Universität 74/1, 47 242, 192 S 71, 182 Herakleion Archaeological Museum 26554, 183 26555, 182 Hildesheim Roemer und Pelizaeus Museum 1253, 183 1254, 187 Izmir Archaeological Museum 48 188.1948, 29, 182 Karlsruhe Badisches Landesmuseum 65.45, 182 69.65, 182

Index of Collections

Kyoto apparently, 184, 273 Lambros Collection, formerly no inventory number, 59 Leiden Rijksmuseum van Oudheden PC 6, 182 PC 7, 186 PC 8, 182, 184 Liverpool National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside 56.19.18, 175, 176 London British Museum 814, 187 B 130, 188 B 131, 188 B 132, 188 B 133, 186 B 134, 55, 182 B 136, 182 B 139, 175 B 141, 175 B 143, 182 B 208, 48 B 251, 58 B 603, 182 B 604, 182 B 605, 182 B 606, 187 B 607, 182 B 608, 182 B 609, 182 B 610, 182 B 611, 182 B 612, 182 B 676, 60 GR 1903.2 17.1, 193 Los Angeles Hearst Collection no inventory number, 187 Madrid Museo Arqueológico Nacional 10900, 187 Malibu J. Paul Getty Museum 76.AE.5, 182 79.AE.9, 187 79.AE.147, 192, 351

81.AE.203 A, 182 93.AE.55, 182 Manchester City Art Gallery III H 52, 176 Melbourne G. Geddes Collection no inventory number, 187 Milan Galleria d’Arte Geri no inventory number, 182 Moscow State Museum for the Art of Oriental People Uljap. 820.4 4, 182 Munich Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek 1451, 29, 182, 183 1452, 187 1453, 182, 184 1455, 182 1456, 182 7767, 186 8746, 186 9399, 29, 182, 183 Mykonos Archaeological Museum 1, 188 2, 187 3, 188 4, 188 5, 186 8, 188 Naples Museo Archeologico Nazionale 81293, 182 81294, 182 86333 (RC 184), 183 112848, 182 Stg. 693, 183 Nauplion Archaeological Museum Glymenopoulos Collection 1, 186, 190 Nelson Bunker Hunt Collection, formerly no inventory number, 47 New Haven Yale University Art Gallery 1909.12, 187 1909.13, 187 New York Metropolitan Museum of Art 07.286.79, 187 07.286.80, 186

515

516

Index of Collections

Metropolitan Museum of Art (cont.) 14.130.12, 182, 184, 185 16.71, 30, 182 20.244, 127 24.97.95, 59 25.78.66, 177 41.162.35, 59 56.171.3, 186 56.171.4, 187 56.171.5, 187 56.171.6, 182 60.92.5, 182 1978.11.13, 29, 182, 183 1986.11.1, 188 1989.281.89, 175 Nicholas S. Zoullas Collection no inventory number, 182 Private Collection L 1982.102.3, 30, 182 Stavros S. Niarchos Collection A 031, 135, 140, 149, 152, 230, 255, 299 Nir David, Israel Museum of Mediterranean Archaeology 72 5455, 571, 182 Oldenburg Stadtmuseum XII/8250/2, 175, 176 Olynthos Excavations inv. 115, 57 Oxford Ashmolean Museum 1911.257, 182 1911.617, 127, 263 1952.548, 187 Palermo Collezione I. Mormino, Banco di Sicilia inv. 769, 68, 81 Museo Regionale 1832, 59 Paris Bibliothèque nationale, Cabinet des Médailles 244, 186 246, 179, 187 247, 182 248, 182 Musée du Louvre CA 7427, 182 E 732, 42 Elé.84, 176 F 273, 187

F 274, 186 F 276, 182 F 277, 182 F 278, 30, 184, 185, 273 F 279, 187 F 280, 182 MN 704, 182 MN 705, 182 MN 706, 182 MNB 3223, 182 Pella Archaeological Museum 83.5485, 187 Piano di Corzano Quarto Capello del Prete Excavations no inventory number, 188 Plovdiv Regional Archaeological Museum no inventory number, 177 Princeton Art Museum, Princeton University 1950.10, 187 Reggio di Calabria Museo Nazionale 4224, 175 Rhodes Archaeological Museum no inventory numbers, 187 Rome Basseggio Collection, formerly no inventory number, 182 Musei Vaticani 360, 58 365, 58 374, 182, 184 375, 183 506, 47 Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia 20749, 57 Samos Archaeological Museum K 948, 187 K 7461 + K 7462 + K 7473 + K 7463 + K 7464 + K 7558 + K 7559, 182 K 7471 + K 7615 + K 7591 + K 7472, 182 K 7500 + K 7490 + K 7554, 182 K 7513 + K 7514 + K 7524 + K 7525, 186 K 7517 + K 3862 + K 7526, 186 K 7533, 187 K 7534 + K 7541, 187 K 7539 + K 7538 + K 7545, 187

Index of Collections

K 7577 + K 7594 + K 7597 + K 7590 + K 7607 + K 7502, 182 K 7586 + K 7587 + K 7589, 182 Sèvres Musée national de Sèvres 7230, 182 Sparta Sparta Excavations no inventory number, 187 St. Petersburg Hermitage Museum 1510, 186 17553 (Ku.1913.4/389), 182 17794, 177, 179 Ak.B.45, 182 P 1911.12, 176 Syracuse Museo Archeologico Regionale 43458, 182, 184 Taranto Museo Nazionale di Taranto 4595, 187 4601, 183 12220, 183, 270 115472, 182 115473, 187 115474, 182 Thebes Archaeological Museum R.46.43, 59 Thessalonike Archaeological Museum

18151, 29 Toledo, OH Toledo Museum of Art 61.24, 182 Tolmeita Tolmeita Excavations no inventory number, 183 Toronto Royal Ontario Museum 915.24, 182 919.5.148, 186 Tübingen Antikensammlung des archäologischen Instituts der Universität S./10 1647ab, 182 Volos Archaeological Museum Ka 4266/91, 182 Vulci Museo Nazionale 64220, 183, 270 Warsaw National Museum 142346, 186 198605, 187 Würzburg Martin von Wagner Museum V.III 301, 187

517

General Index

518

Acharnai, deme, 359 P. Aelius Aristeides, 207, 214 Agathaios, son of Autokles, of Prospalta agonothetes, 370, 372, 373 treasurer of Panathenaia, 370, 373, 374, 375 Aglauros, 154 agonothetes, 371 and annual peplos, 100 and Great Panathenaia, 224, 225, 366, 369, 370, 371 definition, 1 honours for, 370 institution of, 127, 205, 330, 363, 367 number of, 205, 369, 370, 371, 372 of Panathenaia, 1, 370, 371, 372, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379. See also under individual officials of Theseia, 236, 237, 368, 375 responsibilities, 150, 224, 227, 237, 367, 369, 371 Agora after Alaric, 8 Panathenaic Way, 8, 95, 118, 194, 317. See also under games, Panathenaic statue of Demochares, 251 statue of Kallias of Sphettos, 251 statues of generals, 250, 251 statues of Tyrannicides, 78, 79, 251 Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios, 118 Villa of the Giants, 8 agora of Skambonidai, 90, 114, 155 Aigeis, tribe, 196 Aigeus, 67 Ajax, 68 Akamantis, tribe, 359 Akropolis, 186, 370, 374 altar of Athena Hygieia, 87 and Gigantomachy, 41, 43, 44 and Little Panathenaia, 87, 114 and Panathenaic ship. See Panathenaic ship and procession, 1, 94, 95, 118, 126, 148, 157, 171, 315, 317

and rituals, 71 and sacrifices, 4, 35, 84, 156, 275, 317 and torch race, 198, 275 approach to, 345 ar[chaios neos], 86, 87 Erechtheion, 70, 71 Great Altar, 86, 87, 88 Hekatompedon, 124 Parthenon, 344, 345 frieze, 33, 118, 135, 140, 149, 204, 220, 268, 344 50 gold and ivory statue, 54 metopes, 75 Propylaia, 87 sanctuary of Athena Nike, 87 statue group by Myron, 69 Alaric and Visigoths, 7 aletris, 260 Alexander the Great, 84, 162, 163, 165, 167, 168, 169 Alkibiades, son of Kleinias, of Skambonidai, 23, 198 Alkimachos, kitharistes, 328 Alkmeonides, son of Alkmeon, 187, 216, 246 Alkon, child of Erechtheus, 69 allies of Athens City Dionysia. See Dionysia, City Great Panathenaia, 117, 253, 318, 320, 323 after fifth century bc, 167 as servants of goddess, 37, 213, 254, 287, 290, 297, 299, 311 good ally, 167, 213, 290 identities, 284, 286 8, 290 2, 298, 309, 310 panoplies, 160, 164, 169, 213, 290, 291, 301 procession, 128 9, 167, 247, 287, 288, 291, 299, 301 sacrifices, 151, 155, 156, 167, 299 tribute assessment, 117 Amyklai, 68 Anakeion, 370 anthippasia definition, 199

General Index

Great Panathenaia, 199 200, 201, 204, 205, 208, 210, 223, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 243, 247, 329, 330, 349, 358, 361, 363, 364, 365 Olympieia, 200, 205, 329, 330, 331, 359, 361, 363, 364, 365 Antigonis, tribe, 205, 223, 364 Antigonos Gonatas against Gauls, 162, 170, 225 and Athens, 163, 226 and Panathenaia, 163, 165 Antigonos Monophthalmos, 158, 159 Antioch, Chrysaorean, 296 Apatouria, 91 apene definition, 188 Great Panathenaia, 188 90, 202, 219 Aphrodite, 159 apobatai and Parthenon frieze, 347, 349, 353 Great Panathenaia procession, 135, 140, 169, 208, 222, 347 apobatic race and Athena, 34, 53, 54, 55 7, 65, 80, 169, 211, 216, 247 and Gigantomachy, 58 62 and identities, 57, 65, 222 definition, 33 early history, 57 8, 80, 191 in games, 191 2, 193, 194, 195, 202, 203, 207, 208, 210, 211, 215, 216, 217, 222, 225, 242, 244, 247, 249, 329, 330, 351 5, 360 invention of. See Erichthonios limited geographically, 53, 191 stories about, 40, 51 2, 174, 207, 347 Apollo, 19, 104, 152, 159 Ptoios, sanctuary of, 187 Apollonios, son of Leukon, of Kimmerian Bosporos, 163, 295 [Arch]ippos, son of Euxenos, of Eiresidai, 276 archons eponymous, 374 Great Panathenaia identities, 216 procession, 120, 246 Little Panathenaia, 108 Argos, 116 aristeion and ephebes, 95 definition, 95 gold crown as, 161, 165 Aristogeiton. See Harmodios and

Arkadia, 72 arrhephoroi, 101 definition, 71 Artemis, 159 Aster, 41, 42 Asterios, 42, 44 Atarbos of Thorikos, 47, 106, 357 Athena. See apobatic race, Erichthonios, Hephaistos, pyrrhiche Hygieia. See under sacrifices Nike. See also under sacrifices dedication to, 152, 162, 170, 225 priestess of, 255, 256, 257 Polias. See under sacrifices priestess of, 255, 256, 257, 281 Tritogeneia, 46 Athenaia. See Panathenaia Athenians all the. See community of all the Athenians beardless youths. See beardless youths, Athenian boys. See boys, Athenian ephebes. See ephebes girls. See girls, Athenian men. See men, Athenian non residents. See also individual roles on Delos. See Delos other residents. See individual roles definition, 36 women. See women, Athenian athlothetai. See also Perikles and annual peplos, 100, 376 definition, 23 Great Panathenaia, 366, 371 duties of, 171, 180, 185, 366 7, 369 procession, 119 of 242 bc, 152, 171, 374 Attalids, 4, 196 Attalis, tribe, 196 Atthidographers, 28, 51 auletai definition, 174 Great Panathenaia, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179 auloidoi definition, 174 Great Panathenaia, 175, 176, 177, 180, 202 autochthony and Athenian kings, 14. See also individual kings and Athenians, 14, 69, 72, 81, 113, 250 and Panathenaia, 39, 217 Autosthenides, son of Austosthenides, of Xypete, 198

519

520

General Index

Barth, Fredrik, 24 basileus, 347 definition, 198 beardless youths, Athenian Great Panathenaia, 253, 318 deme identities, 281, 283, 284, 297, 298, 300 identities, 262, 270, 272 6, 277, 281, 283, 284, 297 8, 306, 310, 311 newest citizens, 36, 50, 213, 254, 269, 273, 274, 275, 276, 282, 309, 310, 311, 319 procession, 273 4, 276, 282, 300, 301, 305 sacrifices, 274, 276 torch race, 199, 274 5, 276, 300 tribal identities, 254, 281, 282 3, 284, 297, 298, 300, 303, 333 Little Panathenaia, 318 roles, 50, 112 Bendideia, 8, 102. See also pannychis benefactors of Athens, foreign Great Panathenaia, 253, 303, 318, 320 and all the Athenians, 295, 296 identities, 284, 294 7, 298, 299, 310 serve city, 37, 254, 299, 311 benefactors, Athenian. See also ephebes Great Panathenaia, 303 identities at Great Panathenaia, 214, 229, 234 8, 246 as servants of goddess, 236, 237, 238 as servants of Theseus, 237, 238 serve city, 236, 237, 238 Bentz, Martin, 12 Boutes, 87 boxing Great Panathenaia beardless youths, 184, 185, 203 boys, 183 men, 182, 183 boys, Athenian Great Panathenaia, 253, 318 citizens to be, 36, 50, 213, 254, 269, 270, 271, 272, 299, 309, 310, 311, 319 deme identities, 281, 284, 297, 298, 299 identities, 254, 262, 269 72, 273, 276, 281, 284, 297 8, 306, 310, 311 tribal identities, 254, 272, 281, 282 3, 284, 297, 298, 299, 303, 333 Little Panathenaia, 114, 318 roles, 50, 112 Brea City Dionysia, 326 Great Panathenaia, 128, 285 Bremmer, Jan, 20

Bugh, Glen, 230 Burkert, Walter, 39 cavalry, Athenian. See also anthippasia and phylarchoi after 86 bc, 206, 232 and oligarchy, 231 and Parthenon frieze, 349 50 Great Panathenaia, 168 identities, 214, 229 34, 238, 246, 247 identities and citizenship, 231, 234 procession, 137, 146, 166, 169, 208, 229, 232, 233, 245, 301, 349 races for, 193, 194, 195, 196, 206, 210, 229, 232, 233, 247, 331 in Roman period, 210, 233 size, 204, 205, 230, 232, 349 Ceccarelli, Paola, 360 Chalkeia, 101 Charias, son of Euthykrates, of Kydathenaion, 368, 372 chariot, four horse, 187 Great Panathenaia open, 187, 190, 202, 216 tribal, 1, 195, 210, 247 chariot, other synoris. See synoris war Great Panathenaia, 192 zeugos. See zeugos charioteer, dismounting in games, 193, 194, 351, 353, 355 charis, 19 Chios good ally, 289, 290 identities at Great Panathenaia, 287, 289, 290, 299, 307 prayers for, 153, 154, 289 revolts in 412 bc, 289 servants of goddess, 289 choregia, 1 end of, 127, 205, 330, 363 monuments for, 252 choregos, 16, 197. See also Lysias 21, speaker of definition, 5 responsibilities, 107, 367 chorus, cyclic. See also other Athenian festivals Great Panathenaia, 199, 200, 201, 204, 214, 222, 247, 271, 272, 282, 299, 329, 358 Little Panathenaia, 103, 104 6, 107, 200 chorus, dithyrambic. See chorus, cyclic Chremes, son of Theo[ 3 ]dos, of Myrrhinoutta, 237

General Index

Chremonidean War, 154, 163, 225, 251, 365, 372, 373 Chryses, 19 Chthonia, child of Erechtheus, 69 Church of Agios Eleutherios Calendar Frieze, 140 cities, Ionian identities at Great Panathenaia, 291 2 cities, other and spondophoroi, 151, 155 Great Panathenaia, 253, 318, 320 and all the Athenians, 151 2, 293, 294, 309 as servants of goddess, 37, 213, 254, 292, 294, 297, 299, 311 identities, 284, 292 4 penteteric feature, 167 procession, 130 1, 146, 151, 167, 247, 292, 299, 301 sacrifices, 37, 151, 155, 156, 165, 167, 213, 292, 294, 299, 301, 305, 312 Ti. Claudius Atticus Herodes of Marathon agonothetes, 134 and Panathenaic ship, 133, 134, 144, 162, 165 Ti. Claudius Demostratos of Sounion, 378 Ti. Claudius Novius of Oion, 377, 378 9 Cohen, Anthony, 18, 26 colonies, Athenian Great Panathenaia, 117, 164, 253, 318, 320, 323 as servants of goddess, 37, 213, 254, 285, 286, 287, 297, 299, 311 good colony, 167, 213, 286 identities, 284 6, 292, 294, 298, 309, 310 panoplies, 160, 164, 165, 169, 213, 287, 301 procession, 128, 129 30, 146, 167, 247, 286, 299, 301 sacrifices, 150, 151, 155, 156, 167, 285, 299 community of all the Athenians, 38, 334 Great Panathenaia, 36, 117, 315 16, 323, 324 after 229 bc, 152, 165, 226, 292 boundaries, 165, 307, 308, 322, 323 games, 306 identities, 148, 214, 254, 304, 308 10, 313, 314, 319, 320, 324 membership, 4, 34, 35, 36, 37, 76, 156, 157, 161, 166 7, 211, 218, 222, 223, 227, 228, 229, 233, 237, 239, 246, 248, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 276, 277, 280, 281, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 292, 296, 298, 302, 303, 304 6, 307, 308, 310 11, 312, 313, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324

procession, 146, 212, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308 ranking, 304, 305, 306, 308, 310, 311, 312, 321, 323, 324 sacrifices, 148, 151, 155, 156, 212, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308 unstable, 304 inclusiveness, 76, 322, 323 Little Panathenaia, 35, 93, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 315 16, 322 3, 324 membership, 4, 34, 76 L. Cornelius Korinthos, 179 Crete, 45 crowns, gold for Athena. See aristeion honorary, 163, 234, 235 6, 278 9, 294 6, 318, 326 Deinias, son of Deinon, of Erchia, 371, 372 Delia on Delos, 291 Delos, 378 and alliance treasury, 287 Athenians on and Panathenaia, 130, 178 regained by Athens, 103 demarchoi definition, 119 Great Panathenaia identities, 218, 241 procession, 119, 149, 168 of Eleusis, 154 Demeter, 332 Demetrias, tribe, 205, 223 Demetrios, son of Phanostratos, of Phaleron, 224 ends liturgical system, 127, 265, 367 Demetrios Poliorketes, 224 and peplos, 158, 159 revolution from, 154, 224, 225, 251, 365 Demetriou, Denise, 15 Demochares, son of Laches, of Leukonoion, 251 Demosthenes, son of Demosthenes, of Paiania, 149, 200, 242 Diasia, 90 diaulos. See also sprint foot races definition, 29, 182 Great Panathenaia boys, 183 men, 182, 183, 202 Diokles, son of Charinos, of Oineis, 232 Dionysia, City. See also skaphephoroi and agonothetes, 368, 370, 371, 372 and allies, 325, 328

521

522

General Index

Dionysia, City (cont.) and Peisistratid tyrants, 250 and war orphans, 250 announcement of crowns, 234, 279, 294, 326 comedies, 106, 205, 268, 325, 330, 359 cyclic chorus, 16, 104, 105, 107, 200, 205, 325, 328, 330, 359 epimeletai, 154 identities, 252, 264, 325, 326, 327 8, 331, 332, 333 pre play rituals, 327 proagon, 368 procession, 325, 327 Roman, 16 sacrifices, 154, 325, 327 tragedies, 330, 359 tribal contests, 171, 205, 325, 329, 332, 333, 359 tribal feasts, 149, 327 Dionysia, Rural, 325 Dionysios, son of Pythokritos, of Gargettos, 364 Dionysos, 159 diphrophoroi definition, 125 Great Panathenaia, 268 identities, 267 9, 307 procession, 125, 126, 140, 146, 166, 266, 300 serve kanephoroi, 267, 269 in processions, 268, 327 Dipolieia sacrifices at, 90 dolichos definition, 182 Great Panathenaia boys, 183, 272 men, 182, 183, 378 drama competitions Great Panathenaia, 178 Eidinow, Esther, 20 Eleusinia and spondophoroi, 130, 326 games, 234, 279, 294, 326, 328, 330, 331, 332 primary purpose, 332 sacrifices, 89 Eleusinian Mysteries and spondophoroi, 130, 131, 326 epimeletai, 154 participation, 327 procession, 327

profanation of, 104 sacrifices, 154, 327 Eleusinion, 95, 102, 194 Eleusis, 230, 327, 332 Elis, 116 Enkelados, 42, 102 enkomion definition, 178 Great Panathenaia, 178, 207, 378 ephebeia. See also ephebes definition, 16 end of, 280, 308 in Hellenistic period, 209, 278 in Roman period, 16, 280 institution of, 96, 121, 147, 199, 200, 273, 275, 276, 277, 281, 282, 306, 308, 330 reform in 330s bc, 121, 201 ephebes Great Panathenaia, 168, 253, 318 as benefactors, 277, 278 9, 281, 300, 303 deme identities, 254, 281, 283, 284, 297, 298 identities, 262, 276 81, 283, 284, 297 8, 300, 307, 310, 311 newest citizens, 36, 209, 213, 254, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 300, 301, 309, 310, 311, 319 procession, 96, 120, 121 2, 208, 275, 277, 278, 280, 282, 284, 300, 301 Roman period, 169 sacrifices, 277, 280 torch race, 121, 198, 199, 201, 204, 205, 208, 275, 277, 281, 282, 300 tribal identities, 254, 281, 282 3, 284, 297, 298, 303, 333 Little Panathenaia, 115, 318 procession, 95, 97, 109, 111 roles, 112 sacrifices, 89, 92 epiboion, definition, 152 Epitaphia, 77, 328, 332 Erechtheis, tribe, 69, 196 Erechtheus and Erechtheion, 70, 71, 87, 345 and Erichthonios. See Erichthonios as father, 67, 69 birth, 66, 68, 70, 72 cult of Poseidon Erechtheus, 70, 345 death, 69, 72 descendant of Erichthonios, 67 earth born, 68 eponymous hero, 69, 71 fights Eleusinians, 69, 72 king, 67, 69, 72

General Index

no Panathenaic connection, 66, 70 sacrifices daughters, 69, 72 takes on Erichthonios’ roles, 70 Erichthonios and Athena, 41, 55 7, 67, 72, 81, 111 and autochthony, 41, 81 and chariot, 51, 52, 53, 74 and Erechtheus, 40, 66 7, 68, 69, 345 and kanephoroi, 65, 122, 123 and Little Panathenaia, 41 and Panathenaia, 71 and ritual contributions, 66 birth, 54, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 father of Pandion, 67 founder of Athenian royal house, 67 founder of Panathenaia, 34, 39, 41, 51 2, 54, 66, 72, 73, 74, 76, 80, 111, 149, 345 institutes thallophoroi, 65, 124 inventor of apobatic race, 34, 51, 53 5, 65, 72, 80, 169, 211, 216, 247, 250, 351 Erysichthon, 67 Erythrai and Athens, 164 and Great Panathenaia, 164 as servants of goddess, 289 grain from, 164, 289 identities at Great Panathenaia, 287, 289 90, 291, 307 Eteoboutadai, genos, 255, 256, 281 euandria definition, 197 Great Panathenaia, 197 8, 201, 203, 204, 210, 358 Eumolpos, 69 Eurykleides I, son of Mikion I, of Kephisia, 368, 374 Eurykleides III, son of Mikion III, of Kephisia, 243 [E]urykleides IV, son of Eurykleides II, of Kephisia, 276 Euxitheos, son of Thoukritos, of Halimous, 240 T. Flavius Metrobios of Iasos, 378 fortifications, Late Roman, 7 Four Hundred, oligarchy of, 220, 231 funeral orations, 250, 332 games, other festivals Amphiaraia, 180, 190, 329, 332 Asklepieia at Kos, 181 at Marathon, 181 in Boiotia, 180

Isthmia, 171, 207, 312 Koinon Asias at Smyrna, 206 Nemea, 171, 207, 312 Olympic. See Olympia Pythia, 134, 171, 175, 181, 188, 202, 206, 210, 312 Theseia, 330 1, 332 games, Panathenaic, 212, 247, 315, 318, 328, 333, 366, 367. See also under individual events age classes, 30, 31, 174, 180, 181 2, 185, 186, 197 hippic, 186 at Little Panathenaia. See under Panathenaia, Little athletic events, 171, 172, 180 5, 207, 208, 234, 246, 263, 270, 272, 278, 281, 294, 296, 299, 300, 303, 306, 308, 312, 318, 323, 326, 333, 375, 378 order, 181 hippic events, 171, 172, 333 end of, 206, 232 open, 185 90, 191, 206, 208, 263, 306, 308, 312, 323 tribal, 185, 206. See also tribal events location of, 317 musical events, 171, 172, 174 80, 207, 208, 263, 300, 306, 308, 312, 323, 333, 378 dropped after 480 bc, 176, 177, 178, 204 Hellenistic expansion, 178, 179 prizes, 179 80 reintroduced in 446 bc, 176, 177, 178, 204, 271 order of events, 172, 173 overall programme, 201 7, 209, 210, 211 participation, 34, 173, 208, 209, 211, 213, 216, 246, 303 restrictions, 171, 210, 212 tribal events, 4, 200 1, 208, 209, 210, 246 tribal events, 35, 112, 171, 222, 242, 245, 247, 248, 270, 281, 304, 306, 308, 311, 321, 329, 331 end of, 107, 202, 209, 225, 227, 228, 243, 244, 249, 272, 276, 278, 283, 284, 300, 306, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 330, 365, 372 in hippodrome, 194, 196 individuals, 172, 191 6, 206, 208, 226, 227, 233, 243, 246, 247, 305, 306, 310, 312, 330, 358 on Panathenaic Way, 194, 196, 243 prizes, 357 8 teams, 172, 196 201, 204 6, 208, 227, 233, 249, 282, 299, 302 3, 306, 329, 330, 362, 363, 364, 365, 371

523

524

General Index

Gauls, 162, 170 Ge, 68 Geleontes, tribe, 73 generals Great Panathenaia procession, 120 honours for, 250 in Hellenistic period, 371 Little Panathenaia, 94, 96, 108, 115 Genesia, 71 Gephyraioi, genos, 239 Gigantomachy. See also Herakles, Zeus aition for Panathenaia, 5, 34, 39, 40, 41 2, 43, 44, 50, 76, 79, 81, 108, 140, 165 and apobatic race. See apobatic race and Panathenaia, 40, 79, 111, 309, 344 and pyrrhiche. See pyrrhiche, aition of associations at Athens, 44 at Phlegraia, 46 Athena as apobates, 58, 59, 65, 158 first representations, 41, 43, 44 on peplos. See peplos girls, Athenian. See also kanephoroi and pannychis. See pannychis Great Panathenaia, 253, 318 and games, 209, 247 as servants of goddess, 36, 213, 254, 258, 259, 261, 262, 267, 269, 283, 299, 301, 311 at pannychis, 259, 261, 268, 299 deme identities, 254, 281, 283, 284, 297, 298 good daughter, 167 identities, 254, 258 62, 266, 269, 270, 276, 281, 283, 284, 297 8, 309, 310, 311 make peplos, 259, 261, 269, 283, 301 procession, 259, 261, 267, 268, 283, 284, 299, 301 tribal identities, 254, 281, 283, 284, 297, 298, 333 Little Panathenaia, 318 as servants of goddess, 112, 113 procession, 96, 97, 100, 109, 111, 114, 259 work wool for peplos, 96, 97, 100, 101, 103, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114, 259 Glaukon, son of Eteokles, of Aithalidai agonothetes, 361, 362, 363, 370, 371 and Panathenaia, 223, 232, 246 career, 361, 364 5 Goff, Barbara, 14, 15 Gonnoi, 131, 293 and Great Panathenaia, 146, 151, 294 identities at Great Panathenaia, 292, 294, 307 Granikos, battle of, 162, 167

gymnasiarchos, 198, 329, 359 definition, 198 responsibilities, 367 Hadrian, emperor, 169 and Great Panathenaia, 134, 206, 312 Harmodios and Aristogeiton and identities, 217, 239 and identities in 514 bc, 217 as models, 79 bringers of democracy, 34, 41 bringers of freedom, 79, 220 bringers of isonomia, 78, 79 cult, 20, 34, 41, 77 9, 80, 109, 153, 218, 219, 220, 221, 223, 224, 226, 227, 229, 245, 250, 284, 334 introduction of, 78, 168, 240 location of, 153 founders of the democracy, 78, 79 honours for, 77 on Panathenaic amphorae, 78 songs for, 78 statues. See Agora Tyrannicides, 34, 41, 77, 79 Harmodios, sister of, 122, 123, 259, 260 hekatomb. See sacrifices hellenotamiai, definition, 369 Hephaisteia cyclic chorus, 104, 105, 329, 331 torch race, 106, 107, 329, 330, 331 Hephaistos, 67, 68, 87, 159 Herakleitos, son of Asklepiades, of Athmonon, 162, 165 agonothetes, 225, 236, 237, 372, 373 identities, 228 Herakles, 40 in Gigantomachy, 58, 158 heralds, contest for Great Panathenaia, 178 Herculius, praetorian prefect, 6 P. Herennius Dexippos of Hermos agonothetes of Panathenaia, 134, 162, 207 dedications, 162 Herms, mutilation of, 104 Herodes Atticus of Marathon. See Ti. Claudius Atticus Herodes of Marathon Herodotos of Thebes, 328 Herulians, attack of, 207, 228, 280 Hesiod, 18 hestiator, 149, 150, 155 definition, 149 hieropoioi Great Panathenaia, 216

General Index

servants of goddess, 216 Little Panathenaia, 88, 98, 108 not involved in Great Panathenaia, 120 Hieros Gamos, 90 hipparchoi, 200, 232 individual officer as benefactor, 237, 303 Hipparchos, son of Peisistratos, 230, 249 and procession in 514 bc, 119, 217 and rhapsodic contests, 175, 176, 203 birth, 176 death of, 77, 120, 217 Hippias, son of Peisistratos and procession in 514 bc, 119, 217 tyranny, 77, 120, 230, 249 hippios definition, 183 Great Panathenaia boys, 183 men, 183 Hippokleides, son of Teisandros, 216, 239 Hippothontis, tribe, 242 hoplites Great Panathenaia, 182, 183, 202, 206, 210 horse race Great Panathenaia open, 186, 187, 190 tribal, 193, 194, 195 hydriaphoroi definition, 125 Great Panathenaia, 266 as servants of goddess, 267, 269, 307 identities. See metics’ daughters procession, 125, 126, 140, 147, 166, 168, 266, 268 identities as process, 22, 23, 24, 214, 231 Athenian, 17 and civic ideology, 14, 250, 251 women, 14, 15 being Greek under Rome, 16 boundaries, 24, 25 comparison and contrast, 23, 24, 113, 233, 244, 247 8, 254, 264, 293, 298, 300 4, 308 9, 332 creation of, 22 6 ethnic, 21 exemplary individuals, 26 foreigners at Athens, 15 good Athenian as tyrannicide, 79 classical, 14, 250, 251

democrat, 79, 251 Hellenistic, 15 Roman, 16, 252 group, 24 6 imposed, 26 metic women, 15 metics, 15 multiple, 23, 24, 108, 214 Panathenaia, 4, 24, 27, 41, 51, 321, 333, 360. See also under individual roles community, 5, 25, 33 complex, 36, 214, 220. See also under men, Athenian exemplary individuals, 26, 237, 250, 256, 258, 262, 266, 270, 272, 280, 286, 292, 295, 297, 301, 303, 310 Great, 33, 213, 214, 253, 310, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 322, 332 imposed, 26, 37, 214, 238, 290, 291, 297, 298 individual, 5, 33, 35, 232, 233, 238, 242, 272, 276, 296, 297 Little, 33, 35, 37, 108 14, 213, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 321, 322, 325 multiple, 245 8, 298 not complex, 36, 233, 253, 298 servant of goddess, definition, 108 subgroups, 35, 214 performed, 14, 15, 24 Self Categorisation Theory, 22 social context of, 17, 22, 23, 26, 108, 214, 246 7 Social Identity Theory, 17, 22, 26 Immarados, 69 Ion, 91 javelin throw on horseback Great Panathenaia, 33, 193, 195 Jenkins, Richard, 22 Julian, emperor, 7 Kallias, son of Thymochares, of Sphettos, 234, 251 kanephoroi. See also girls, Athenian, and Erichthonios at other festivals, 259 60, 327 definition, 65 Great Panathenaia, 167, 259, 261, 269 as servants of goddess, 267 identities, 260, 267, 268, 269, 307 procession, 122 3, 125, 137, 140, 146, 148, 166, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 266, 267, 268, 300, 301 in processions, 268 Little Panathenaia, 86, 92, 93, 94, 108, 112

525

526

General Index

Kekropis, tribe, 359 Kekrops, 66, 67 and autochthony, 68, 72 at birth of Erichthonios, 67 founder of Athenian royal house, 67 Kekrops (II), child of Erechtheus, 69 Kennedy, Rebecca, 15 Kerameikos, 102, 317 and Great Panathenaia, 118, 119 and Little Panathenaia, 86, 94, 114. See also sacrifices, division of meat and torch race, 106 Dipylon Gate, 95, 194 kitharistai definition, 174 Great Panathenaia, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 202 kitharoidoi definition, 174 Great Panathenaia, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179 klerouchs, definition, 130 Kolophon and Great Panathenaia, 293 crown from, 130, 161, 285 kinship with Athens, 130, 131, 167 panoply from, 130, 285 kosmetes of ephebes, 278 definition, 237 identities, 237 [K]rat[e]s, son of Heortios, of Peiraieus, 222, 242, 243 Kreousa, child of Erechtheus, 67, 69 kyrbeis, definition, 91 Lachares of Athens, 224 Lamachos, 55 Lamia, 326 Lape, Susan, 14, 15, 17 League of Corinth, 162 Lenaia, 106, 330, 359 Leokoreion, 119 Leontis, tribe, 231, 243, 361 Leukon, son of Satyros, of Kimmerian Bosporos, 295 Little Metropolis. See Church of Agios Eleutherios Loraux, Nicole, 14 Lykaia, 72 Lykaon, 72 Lykourgos, son of Lykophron, of Boutadai, 123, 258 Lysias 21, speaker of, 1 Great Panathenaia, 5, 221, 242, 243 Little Panathenaia, 5, 104, 106, 197

Lysimacheia, battle of, 162 Lysimachos, 132, 161, 163 Lysimachos of Athmonon, 372 Mantineia, 116 Marathon, 99 Marathon, battle of, 153, 288 Mekone, 18 men, Athenian. See also cavalry and autochthony. See autochthony as benefactors. See benefactors, Athenian Great Panathenaia, 168, 318 active for city, 36, 223, 224, 246, 311 armed in procession, 120, 137, 140, 166, 169, 215, 217, 218, 245, 274, 301 as democrats, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 226, 236, 249 as servants of goddess, 36, 213, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 245, 246, 252, 262, 275, 281, 311 complex identities, 36, 214, 215, 216, 228, 229, 238, 245, 246, 248, 253, 266, 298, 300, 309, 311 deme identities, 36, 214, 240 1, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 284 genos identities, 36, 214, 239 40, 244, 246, 247, 248, 281 good citizen, 82, 167, 209, 213, 225, 226, 227, 252, 270, 311 identities, 214, 215 29, 238, 241, 244, 245 52, 253, 258, 271, 274, 306, 309, 310. See also cavalry identities and citizenship, 36, 50, 215, 222, 226, 228, 248, 311, 312, 313, 319, 321 identities and political change, 36, 215, 220, 229, 253 procession, 146, 166, 220, 221, 225, 227, 228, 247, 301. See also thallophoroi sacrifices, 221, 225 subgroup identities, 238 45 tribal identities, 36, 215, 240 4, 245, 246, 247, 248, 284, 303, 333 Little Panathenaia, 318 complex identity, 113 good Athenian, 82, 113 procession, 110 roles, 50, 112, 113, 114 sacrifices, 110 servant of goddess, 113 Menand[ros, son of Askle]piad[e]s, of Athens, 276 Merope, child of Erechtheus, 69

General Index

metics and demes, 15, 23, 209 and liturgies, 127, 263, 265, 268 Great Panathenaia, 117, 168, 253, 318 and games, 209, 247 and meat distribution, 149, 156, 264 as servants of goddess, 36, 213, 254, 262, 263, 264, 265, 269, 299, 301, 311 good metic, 167, 265 identities, 23, 262 6, 281, 297 8, 309, 310, 311 procession, 140, 247, 265, 266, 299, 302, 367. See also skaphephoroi history of. See metoikia Little Panathenaia, 318 and all the Athenians, 110, 111 as servants of goddess, 112, 113 no meat, 93, 110 procession, 95, 97, 109 wives of, 166 metics’ daughters Great Panathenaia, 117, 253, 318 as servants of goddess, 36, 213, 254, 262, 266, 269, 299, 301, 311 good daughter, 167 identities, 254, 266 9, 270, 281, 297 8, 307, 309, 310 procession, 95, 126, 140, 166, 247, 266, 268, 269, 299, 300, 301, 367 See also diphrophoroi, hydriaphoroi, parasol bearers Little Panathenaia, 318 as servants of goddess, 112, 113 procession, 95, 97, 109 Metion, child of Erechtheus, 69 metoikia definition, 111 end of, 75, 111, 127, 147, 169, 265 introduction of, 126, 147, 168, 262 Metoikia, festival. See Synoikia Midas of Akragas, 175 Mikion II, son of Mikion I, of Kephisia, 373, 374 Mikion IV, son of Eurykleides II, of Kephisia, 196, 243 Miletos, 129 Miltiades, son of Zoilos, of Marathon agonothetes of Panathenaia, 1, 162, 227, 246, 368, 370, 375 of Theseia, 236, 368 and peplos, 132, 161

daughter of, 123, 260 Mnesitheos, son of Echedemos, of Kydathenaion, 196 Nea, the, 83, 84, 86, 88, 92 Newby, Zahra, 16 Nike, 55 Nikias, son of Philon, of Otryne, 361, 362, 364 Nikias of Athens, 361, 362, 364 Nikogenes, son of Nikon, of Philaidai, 368 nomothetai, 85 Nysa, queen, 303 Odeion of Perikles, 317, 370 Oliver, Graham, 163 Olympia, 40, 83, 116, 312 games, 134, 171, 181, 187, 188, 202, 206, 210, 355 Olympieia, 365. See also anthippasia Olympiodoros of Athens, 365 Oreithyia, child of Erechtheus, 69 Orneus, child of Erechtheus, 69 Oropos, 84 sanctuary of Amphiaraos, 53 Orphics, 21 other cities. See cities, other other residents. See Athenians and individual roles Pairisades, son of Leukon, of Kimmerian Bosporos, 163, 295, 296 Palagia, Olga, 144 Pallas, king, 67 Panathenaia. See also individual components and roles and agonothesia. See agonothetes and democracy, 79, 80, 97, 109 10, 168, 221, 222, 223, 224 5, 226, 231, 240, 249, 284, 334 and end of the tyranny, 79. See also Harmodios and Aristogeiton and freedom, 220 and Giants. See Gigantomachy and identities. See identities and individual roles and Kleisthenic democracy, 37, 147, 150, 168, 203, 218 19, 229, 230, 233, 238, 242, 245, 249, 250, 256, 257, 263, 270, 273, 281, 285, 307, 316, 334, 357, 360 and non democratic regimes, 168, 222 4, 225 6, 232, 240, 249, 284 and political change, 37, 168 9, 205, 206, 210, 214, 215, 227, 233, 334 5

527

528

General Index

Panathenaia (cont.) called Athenaia, 75 cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton. See Harmodios and Aristogeiton end of, 7 8, 310, 314, 334 founders of. See Erichthonios and Theseus Great after 229 bc, 151, 169, 234, 292, 294, 301, 305, 308, 309, 312, 320. See also cities, other after ad 124, 6 and cityscape, 317 and imperial cult, 377 9 and other festivals, 326 33, 334 and periodos, 312 13 announcement of crowns, 234, 235, 236, 237, 278, 279, 294, 295, 296, 318, 326 becomes eiselastic, 134, 228 games. See games, Panathenaic gifts for Athena, 156 7, 161 5, 170, 212, 284, 285. See also peplos and panoplies instituted in 566 bc, 5, 34, 41, 43, 44, 215, 230, 270, 314 main elements, 117, 212, 315, 317 roles, 212 13, 304, 308, 309, 310, 311, 323, 333 roles, ideal, 36, 166, 167, 213, 253, 256, 310 roles, restricted, 117, 166, 168, 312, 313, 320, 321, 322, 323 spectators, 126, 195, 208, 209, 210, 220, 246, 247, 252, 256, 258, 262, 263, 264, 277, 301 2, 303, 306, 308, 310, 318, 322, 323 Great and Little compared differences, 318 22 similarities, 314 17 inclusivity, 76, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 249, 264, 293, 308, 314, 320, 324, 333, 334 Little and cityscape, 114 15, 317 and games, 35, 85, 103 8, 109, 114, 315. See also under individual events and other festivals, 325 6, 334 and tribal contests, 107, 109, 111, 112, 114, 325 core elements, 85, 98, 99, 103, 108, 114, 315, 317 introduction of peplos. See peplos local focus, 85, 113, 116, 171, 318, 319, 321, 322, 324, 325 spectators, 109, 114 stories, 83 main elements, 34, 35, 315 meaning of name, 4, 13, 292, 304, 315, 316, 317, 321, 333, 334

military theme, 5, 35, 39, 50, 51, 65, 80, 96, 115, 162, 165, 169 70, 174, 193, 200, 210 11, 212 not birthday of Athena, 39, 40 primary purpose, 4, 34, 115, 148, 309, 314, 315, 334 reorganisation in 566 bc, 34, 44, 65, 72, 76, 79, 159, 310, 334 terminology, 5 unity, 76, 115, 118, 169, 212 victory celebration, 5, 34, 40, 80, 160, 212 Panathenaia Sebasta, Great. See Panathenaia, Great, and imperial cult Panathenaic amphora. See also Index of Collections and agonothetes of Panathenaia, 375 and athlothetai, 366 and treasurer of Panathenaia, 374, 375 as prize, 1, 12, 28, 29, 116 conservatism, 160 distribution, 312 iconography, 29, 30 2, 169 imitation (pseudo ), 33 label, 29, 316, 317 Roman, 32, 169 white ground, 32 Panathenaic ship and peplos, 102, 131, 157, 160 and Ploutarchos, 6 and procession, 133 4, 140 4, 228 crew of, 257 introduced, 121, 147, 169, 316 Pandion, king, 67 Pandionis, tribe, 196 Pandora, child of Erechtheus, 69 Pandrosos sheep for, 137, 152 pankration definition, 182 Great Panathenaia beardless youths, 185, 203, 276 boys, 183, 184 men, 182, 183 pannychis and choruses, 99 at Bendideia, 98 at Great Panathenaia, 212, 214, 247, 259, 261, 299, 304, 306 at Little Panathenaia, 85, 98 9, 111, 112, 115 definition, 85 location of, 317

General Index

panoplies. See also colonies, Athenian and allies of Athens and Giants, 160 for Athena, 160 1, 162, 165 from battle of Granikos, 162, 165, 167, 169 Paralos, son of Perikles, of Cholargos, 23 parasol bearers Great Panathenaia, 268 identities, 267 9, 307 procession, 126, 140, 146, 166, 266, 300 serve kanephoroi, 267, 269 in processions, 268, 327 Parker, Robert, 12, 20 Parmenides, 116 Paros, 285 City Dionysia, 326, 327 Great Panathenaia, 129, 285 kinship with Athens, 131 Parthenon. See Akropolis Patron, son of Archelaos, of Perithoidai, 232 Peiraieus, 15, 102 Peisistratos, son of Hippokrates and Erichthonios, 58, 217 and Great Panathenaia, 44, 217 and Homeric epic, 176 and Phye, 57, 58, 65, 72, 76, 217 death, 176 second tyranny, 57, 80, 217, 230, 249 third tyranny, 217, 230, 249 Peloponnesian War, 177, 179, 204, 220, 230, 289 Pelops, 40 pentathlon Great Panathenaia beardless youths, 184, 185, 203 boys, 183 men, 182, 183, 184, 202 peplos and Gigantomachy, 41, 42, 43, 102, 115, 158, 159, 160, 165, 169, 348 and Parthenon frieze, 135, 347 8, 349 annual, 35, 85, 96, 99 introduction, 101, 102, 103, 108, 114, 157, 259, 316, 376 definition, 1 Great Panathenaia, 101, 116, 131 4, 156, 157 60, 246, 348, 366, 367 Perikles, son of Xanthippos, of Cholargos and musical events, 174, 176 athlothetes, 23, 220, 246 identities, 23, 220, 228, 246 Perrin Saminadayar, Éric, 16 Persian Wars, 16, 177, 288

Phaidros, son of Thymochares, of Sphettos, 365 agonothetes, 224, 365, 370, 371 honours, 234, 236, 251, 326 Pharnakes I of Pontos, 303 Pheidippides, son of Strepsiades, of Athens, 188, 192, 243 Philaidai, genos, 239 Phlegraia, 46 Phrynis of Mytilene, 176 Phye. See also Peisistratos and Athena, 58 as parabates, 57 phylarchoi, 232 definition, 193 Great Panathenaia games, 193, 194, 223, 232 procession, 223 Olympieia, 363 Plataia, 289 destruction in 427 bc, 288 good ally, 288, 289, 290 identities at Great Panathenaia, 287, 288 9, 290, 299, 307 prayers for, 153, 154, 288 Plataia, battle of, 287, 288 Pleistoanax, king of Sparta, 230 Plotheia, deme Great Panathenaia, 149 Ploutarchos of Athens, 6 polemarchos duties of, 78 Great Panathenaia and cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, 218 identities, 218, 219 polis religion, 19 21, 37, 334 and alternative voices, 20, 21 and Panathenaia, 37 definition, 13 14 usefulness of, 21 Polystratos, son of Damichos, Philaidai, 272 Poseidon, 69, 87, 159 Praxiergidai, 100 prayers at Great Panathenaia, 148, 153 5, 156, 170, 293, 305 at Little Panathenaia, 87, 90, 322 Prerosia. See Proerosia Price, Simon, 378 Priene and Great Panathenaia, 1, 130, 286, 293 gift for Athena, 4, 293, 301 identities at Great Panathenaia, 286, 294, 307

529

530

General Index

Priene (cont.) kinship with Athens, 4, 130, 131, 155, 167, 293, 294, 301, 305 panoply from, 1, 130 procession from, 1, 130 relationship to all the Athenians, 4, 286 procession at Great Panathenaia, 1, 117, 118 48, 156, 164, 170, 171, 209, 212, 215, 218, 224, 227, 228, 230, 233, 245, 246, 247, 258, 273, 281, 283, 289, 293, 299, 301 2, 303, 304, 305, 307, 309, 315, 319, 320, 349, 350, 366. See also individual roles marshals, 137 musicians, 137 organisation of, 168 route, 118, 317 sacrificial animals, 137 subgroups, 150, 166, 238, 240, 241, 242, 244, 245, 250, 252, 263, 301 visual evidence, 134 44 at Little Panathenaia, 85, 86, 87, 92, 93, 94 8, 108, 115, 315 organisation, 97, 109, 111 route, 95, 102, 114, 317 subgroups, 109 Proerosia, 90, 325 Proklos, 8 and Panathenaia, 8, 102 Prokris, child of Erechtheus, 69 Prometheia cyclic chorus, 104, 105, 329, 331 torch race, 106, 107, 329, 330, 331 Prometheus, 18 Protogeneia, child of Erechtheus, 69 proxenoi, definition, 293 prytaneis Great Panathenaia procession, 120, 220, 249 institution of, 147, 220 Little Panathenaia, 108, 109 Prytanis, son of Astyleides, of Karystos, 326 Ptolemaia at Athens, 234, 279, 294, 326 Ptolemais, tribe, 1, 196 Ptolemies, 4, 196 Ptolemy II, 132, 161, 163 Ptolemy V, 1, 4 Ptolemy VI, 131 pyrrhiche aition of, 34, 40, 45, 46, 47, 50, 80, 115, 174 and Athena, 34, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 111, 161, 174, 197, 207, 211, 216, 247, 270, 271, 272, 273, 282, 309

and identities, 50 and Panathenaia, 46, 47, 197 associations of, 46 ‘Athena’ movement, 48, 50 definition, 33 Great Panathenaia, 47, 197, 200, 201, 203, 207, 210, 211, 215, 216, 218, 221, 222, 225, 242, 247, 249, 270, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 282, 300, 329 Little Panathenaia, 47, 85, 103, 106, 107, 108, 113 classes, 106 non Athenian explanations, 47 tribally organised, 50, 357 60 pyrrhichistai and Athena. See pyrrhiche appearance, 47 8 definition, 1 expenditures on, 1, 5 reciprocity and festivals, 19, 260 and Panathenaia, 4, 34, 35, 36, 39, 84, 92, 117, 148, 149, 150, 155, 166, 170, 208, 212, 222, 223, 254, 261, 265, 269, 285, 289, 291, 295, 309, 314 subgroups of city, 90, 91, 92, 239, 240 continuation of, 19 offerings, 18, 19, 157 refusal of, 19 sacrifices, 18, 19 Revett, Nicholas, 344 rhapsodes definition, 175 Great Panathenaia, 174, 175 6, 177, 202, 203 Robertson, Noel, 39 Rome, 228 Rufinus, praetorian prefect, 7 sacrifices and community, 18 and reciprocity. See reciprocity at festivals, 19. See also individual festivals at Great Panathenaia, 1, 4, 117, 137, 148 56, 164, 170, 171, 209, 212, 216, 220, 246, 274, 275, 277, 292, 293, 299, 304, 305, 307, 320 division of meat, 148, 155, 156, 164, 246, 250, 274, 277, 280, 281, 285, 292, 300, 306 from demes, 149, 150, 240, 241, 242, 244 from gene, 150, 240, 241, 244, 245

General Index

from subgroups, 150, 151, 168, 226, 228, 238, 244, 245, 246, 263, 301 from tribes, 149, 150, 155, 240, 241 2, 244, 320, 367 in ar[chaios neos]?, 152 to [Apollo Prostat]erios, 152 to Athena Hygieia?, 152 to Athena Nike?, 122, 152 to Pandrosos. See Pandrosos at Little Panathenaia, 35, 84, 85 94, 109, 110, 115 division of meat, 87, 92 3, 94, 109, 110 from subgroups, 91, 109, 110, 111. See also individual subgroups in ar[chaios neos], 86, 87 to Athena Hygieia, 86, 87, 92 to Athena Nike, 86, 87, 89, 92 to Athena Polias, 86, 87, 91 banning of, 7 decline of, 7 hekatomb at Panathenaia, 88, 89, 149 Hesiod on, 18 Salaminioi, genos Great Panathenaia, 168 identities, 239, 240 procession, 239 sacrifices, 150, 155, 239, 240 Little Panathenaia procession, 95 sacrifices, 91, 93, 137, 239 Salamis, battle of, 287, 288 scholia, 28 definition, 27, 28 Schultz, Peter, 54 ships, contest of Great Panathenaia, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205, 210, 222, 249, 272, 358, 363 Sikyon, child of Erechtheus, 69 sitophylakes, 370, 373, 375 definition, 366 Skambonidai, deme Great Panathenaia identities, 244 procession, 241 sacrifices, 91, 149, 155, 241 Little Panathenaia procession, 95 sacrifices, 90, 91, 93 skaphephoroi. See also metics at Dionysiac festivals, 124, 264, 327, 328 definition, 121 Great Panathenaia, 264, 265

procession, 95, 121, 123, 124 5, 126 8, 140, 146, 166, 262, 263, 264, 268, 300, 301 Skira, 71 Sogenes, son of Sogenes, of Erchia, 196 Sokrates, son of Sogenes, of Erchia, 196 Sokrates, son of Sophroniskos, of Alopeke, 118, 248 Solon, 176 Solonian classes, 14 Sourvinou Inwood, Christiane, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 37, 44 Spartokos, son of Leukon, of Kimmerian Bosporos, 163, 295, 296 spondophoroi. See also cities, other, Eleusinia and Eleusinian Mysteries announcement of, 130, 131, 151, 292, 293, 319 definition, 130 Great Panathenaia, 130 1, 326 sprint foot races Great Panathenaia beardless youths, 184 boys, 183 men, 182, 184 stadion. See also sprint foot races definition, 29, 182 Great Panathenaia beardless youths, 184, 185, 203 boys, 183, 184, 202 men, 182, 183, 202 Stuart, James, 344 subgroups of Athens. See procession, sacrifices and individual groups and roles Sulla, L. Cornelius, 206, 232 synauletai, 177, 178 definition, 177 Synoikia, 73 called Metoikia, 74 synoris definition, 187 Great Panathenaia, 187 open, 188, 190 tribal, 187, 195, 196, 210, 247 Olympia, 187 type of car, 188 Tanagra, battle of, 204, 230 taxiarchoi definition, 95 Great Panathenaia procession, 120 Little Panathenaia, 94, 96, 108, 109, 115

531

532

General Index

Tekmessa, 68 thallophoroi. See also Erichthonios definition, 65, 123 Great Panathenaia procession, 123 4, 125, 135, 137, 140, 146, 166, 168, 241, 245, 246, 301 Thargelia, 325, 326 cyclic chorus, 104, 105, 107, 359 local focus, 325 tribal contests, 325, 329, 331 Theatre of Dionysos, 317, 327, 328 Thebes, 84, 288 Theodosius I, emperor, 7 theoria, definition, 151 theorodokoi, 293 definition, 151 Theseus and Amazons, 75 and Centaurs, 75 and Synoikia, 73 and synoikismos, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 80 and war chariots, 74 founder of Panathenaia, 34, 39, 41, 51, 72 4, 75, 76, 80, 237 return of bones, 75 Thesmophoria, 325 Thespios, child of Erechtheus, 69 Thirty, oligarchy of, 220, 221, 222, 231, 265 Thorikos, deme Great Panathenaia identities, 244 procession, 241 sacrifices, 149, 241 Little Panathenaia no meat, 90 procession, 95 sacrifices, 90, 91, 93 Titans and Giants, 45 battle against, 45 torch race. See also Hephaisteia and Prometheia Great Panathenaia, 107, 121, 198 9, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 208, 275, 278, 282, 300, 330, 358, 359 Little Panathenaia, 106 Tracy, Stephen, 362 treasurer of Panathenaia, 366, 370, 371, 373 5 and athlothetai, 375 end of, 375 institution of, 373 responsibilities, 373, 374, 375

servant of goddess, 226 treasurer of stratiotic fund, 371, 374 treasurers of Athena and prize oil, 367 Great Panathenaia procession, 120 Little Panathenaia, 108 term of office, 116, 367 treasurers of the other gods, 116 Triptolemos, 332 Triton, river, 46 Tydeus, 55 Tyrannicides. See Harmodios and Aristogeiton Vernant, Jean Pierre, 18 Vian, Francis, 39, 54, 58, 158 women, Athenian and pannychis. See pannychis as wives, 166, 209, 257 Great Panathenaia, 253, 257, 318 and games, 209, 247 as servants of goddess, 36, 166, 213, 254, 255 8, 262, 269, 299, 311 identities, 262, 266, 276, 281, 297 8, 309, 310. See also as servants of goddess procession, 140, 166, 256, 258, 299, 302 sacrifices, 258, 299 Little Panathenaia as servants of goddess, 112, 113 no meat, 111 women, Trojan, 19 Woolf, Greg, 20 wrestling Great Panathenaia beardless youths, 185, 203 boys, 183, 184 men, 182, 183 Xanthippos, son of Perikles, of Cholargos, 23 Xenokles, son of Xeinis, of Sphettos, 198 Zenon, 116 zeugos and dismounting charioteer, 353, 355 definition, 187 Great Panathenaia, 187 8 open, 187, 188, 190 tribal, 193, 195, 196, 210, 247 Zeus, 72 childhood, 45 in Gigantomachy, 58, 65, 137, 158, 159