Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T15:05:49.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Funeral Memorials of the First Priestess of Athena Nike

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Peter J. Rahn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Lekythos of Myrrhine (NM 4485) is described and dated to the last decade of the fifth century. It is a specially commissioned memorial, commemorating her religious office; she is demonstrated to have been the first priestess of Athena Nike. The gravestone to Myrrhine found near Zographo is also discussed. It is suggested that the Lethykos is either a public monument, or an attempt by her family to draw public attention to her, while the Zographo stone marked her actual burial place.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 81 , November 1986 , pp. 195 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acknowledgements. I wish to express my gratitude for their help to Christos Doumas, Mrs D. Peppas-Delmouzou, Mrs K. Molzani, and the staff in the Epigraphic Museum in Athens; Mrs K. Morati, Mrs Avgerinou, and the staff in the National Museum in Athens; and to the Director, H. W. Catling, and the staff of the British School at Athens.

1 The following are the relevant publications. Abbreviations to be used in subsequent notes follow in brackets. Clairmont, Christoph W., ‘The Lekythos of Myrrhine’, in Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology (P. H. von Blanckenhagen Festschrift, Locust Valley 1979) 103–10Google Scholar and pls. xxx, xxxi (LM); Clairmont, , Gravestone and Epigram (Mainz 1970) 66Google Scholar; Schmaltz, Bernhard, Untersuchungen zu den attischen Marmorlekythen (Berlin 1970) (Schmaltz)Google Scholar; Frel, Jiri, ‘Ateliers et Sculpteurs Attiques Fin 5ème–4ème S.’, Eirene 5–6, (1966–1967) 79–83 (Frel)Google Scholar; Schlorb, Barbara, Untersuchungen zur Bildhauergeneration nach Phidias (Waldsassen 1964) (Schlorb)Google Scholar; Daux, George, ‘L'Activité Archéologique en Grèce’, BCH 85 (1961) 605, pl. xviiiGoogle Scholar; Karusu, Semni, ‘Ερμῆ ψυχοπομπός’ AM 86 (1961) 90–106Google Scholar; Dohrn, T., Attische Plastik (Krefeld 1957) no. 45, 137–40 (Dohrn)Google Scholar; Friis Johansen, K., The Attic Grave Reliefs of the Classical Period (Copenhagen 1951) 82, 161 (KFJ)Google Scholar; Diepolder, H., Die attischen Grabreliefs (Berlin 1931) 19, pl. 13.1 (Diep.)Google Scholar; Kjellberg, Ernst, Studien zu den attischen Reliefs des V. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Uppsala 1926) 132–3 (Kjellberg)Google Scholar; Conze, A., Die attischen Grabreliefs Band i (Berlin 1893) no. 1146, pl. 242 (Conze)Google Scholar; Benndorf, O., ‘Relief einer attischen Grabvase’, AM 4 (1879) 183–9Google Scholar; Ravaisson, F., ‘Vase funéraire attique’, Gaz. Archeol. i (1875) 21–5, 41–61 and pl. 7.Google Scholar

2 Karouzou, S., National Archaeological Museum: Collection of Sculpture, tr. Wace, Helen (Athens 1968) 48.Google Scholar

3 The most important publication of these excavations is Charitonidou, S. I., AE 117 (1958) 1–152.Google Scholar For a very general review of these graves, see Kurtz, Donna C. and Boardman, John, Greek Burial Customs (Ithaca 1971) 95, 354 and map 4 on 337.Google Scholar

4 For detailed discussion of the stylistic trends in these funerary monuments, see Schmaltz, 21–52, 92–5; Prukakis-Christodulopulos, Avgi, ‘Einege Marmorlekythen’, AM 85 (1970) 54–99Google Scholar, particularly 54–72 (APC); Stupperich, Richard, Staatsbegrabnis und Privatgrabmal im klassischen Athen (Munster 1977) Diss. (Stupp.)Google Scholar; Humphreys, S. C., ‘Family Tombs and Tomb Cult in Ancient Athens: Tradition or Traditionalism’, JHS 100 (1980) 96–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar, particularly 112–21.

5 The shapes in FIG. I are based on NM 810; Copenhagen NCG 2785 and 2788, and NM 3620a. The early marble lekythoi have a ratio of 1:4 or 5 for the radius to the height. Around 375 BC that ratio changes to 1:3 and around 340 BC to 1:2.5. The ratio for the Myrrhine lekythos is 25:123 or about 1: 5. Examples of the slender white-ground lekythoi decorated by the Reed and Triglyph painter are Louvre S1 161, and NM 1756, both published in Kurtz, D. C., Athenian White Lekythoi (Oxford 1975) pls. 48.1 and 2Google Scholar; 51.3 and 4.

6 Walbank, M., ‘Criteria for the Dating of Fifth-century Attic Inscriptions’, in Phoros, Bradeen, D. W. and McGregor, M. F. (eds.) (Glückstadt 1974) 164 n. 9 lists three.Google Scholar

7 F. Jacoby, FGH 115.

8 See Walbank, loc. cit. n. 9; also IG ii2 1 (405 BC); 12 (411 BC); IG i2 117 (407 BC).

9 Op. cit. 165–7.

10 e.g. NM 717, 737, 869, 1055. Cf. Schmaltz, 92.

11 e.g. NM 1755, 1816, 1935, 13701; London, D58.

12 e.g. the monumental Kouroi from the Archaic period; kylix by Euphronios in the Louvre, G104; Caeretan hydria in Vienna, Mus. für Kunst und Industrie 217, both published in Buschor, E., Greek Vase Painting, tr. Richards, G. C. (Chicago 1971), pls. i, xlii.Google Scholar In literature the corpses of both Orestes and Theseus were regarded as larger than normal, Hdt. 1. 66–8; Plut. Theseus 36.

13 See Humphreys, , JHS 100 (1980) 98–105.Google Scholar See also KFJ about the heroization of Myrrhine. Stupp. 115 and Clairmont, , Gravestone and Epigram (Mainz 1980) 64–71Google Scholar, disagree.

14 Schmaltz, 90–5, points out that in Athens in the last decade of the fifth century and the first decades of the fourth marble lekythoi were reserved as commemorations for older, more distinguished members of the family and community.

15 The second law banning ostentatious funerals at Athens, referred to by Cicero, de Leg. 2. 64, is generally thought to have originated about 500 –BC (see Kurtz, Athenian White Lekythoi 136), in the time of the Kleisthenic reforms, or perhaps in the time of Themistocles (see Clairmont, Gravestone and Epigram 11, 12, 41–6).

16 Stupp. 106, dates his stance to the last decade of the fifth century.

17 e.g. NM 803 (geom.); NM 449 (b.f.); NM 1452 (r.f); NCG 2791 (w.g.); Schweitzer, B., Greek Geometric Art (London 1969) 39, 40Google Scholar, discusses its early significance. I do not think, as Kurtz and Boardman, Greek Burial Customs 101 suggest, that this is an apotropaic gesture. NM 3585, published in AA (1974) 655, Abb. 3, shows quite clearly that the gesture is directed at a Naiskosstele in remembrance or adoration. The view of Schiering, W., ‘Stele und Bild bei griechischen Grabmalern’, AA (1974) 653Google Scholar, that this gesture is supposed to link the deceased with his own memorial is disproved by the succession of figures on each of the vases mentioned above who all make the same gesture but cannot all be the deceased.

18 Humphreys, , JHS 100 (1980) 112.Google Scholar

19 Dohrn, 139.

20 Schmaltz, 160, tabelle 2. Clairmont, , LM 107, 109Google Scholar, suggests that the young woman points at Myrrhine with the index finger of the hand that rests on the elderly gentleman's shoulder. The very intimacy of the scene leads me to reject Clairmont's assertion that this group are merely onlooking Athenians.

21 See Kjellberg concerning the chiasmus. The attempt to establish Polykleitos' idea about proportions has given rise to much debate. E.g. von Steuben, Hans, Der Kanon des Polyklet (Tubingen 1973) 56–68Google Scholar; Tobin, Richard, ‘The Canon of Polykleitos: A Question of Evidence’, JHS 98 (1978) 121–31.Google Scholar For the sections from the top of the head to the nape of the neck, from the nape to the waist and from the waist to the ground von Steuben determines proportions 1:2:5 based on measurements taken from the amazon in the Capitoline Museum, no. 651 (Taf. 40–2). These measurements on the Myrrhine figure are c.0.09 m, 0. 18 m, and 0.45 m, or 1: 2:5.

22 Blümel, C., Der Fries des Tempels der Athena Nike (Berlin 1923)Google Scholar Taf. i–iii and JdI 65–6 (1950–1) 135–65, Abb. 16. The resemblance was first noticed by Kjellberg.

23 See Robertson, M., A History of Greek Art 345 and pl. 115.Google Scholar This ovular fold on the lower leg on the edge of the relief to the viewer's right is echoed by a similar fold on the lower leg of the young man at the edge of the relief to the viewer's left.

24 Ibid., pl. 123a.

25 e.g. the famous portrayal of the Nike unbinding her sandal. Alt. Mus. no. 973. Ibid., pl. 117a. See Carpenter, Rhys, The Sculpture of the Nike Temple Parapet (Cambridge 1928) 63.Google Scholar Walter Schuchardt, Herring, Die Epochen der Griechischen Plastik (Baden-Baden 1959) 88Google Scholar, dates this balustrade even later, 410–406 BC.

26 Richter, G. M. A., The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks, new rev. edn. (New Haven 1962) 244Google Scholar, fig. 637.

27 NM 155. See Richter, op. cit. 276–80, fig. 713.

28 e.g. Agora Mus. S312 in Guide to the Athenian Agora (Athens 1976) 211; Schlorb, 50, Taf. 8.

29 Conze, 1146; Karusu, S., AM 76 (1961) 90–106.Google Scholar

30 e.g. the copy of the Doryphoros, Naples Nat. Mus. no. 6011; Diadoumenos statue from Delos, NM 1826.

31 See the comments of KFJ.

32 NM 1817; Munich Mus. antiker Kleinkunst no. 2798, published in Robertson, Martin, Greek Painting (Geneva 1959) 154, 152Google Scholar; NM 1958, 1995, 1956, 13701, in Donna C. Kurtz, Athenian White Lekythoi pls. 19.3, 38.4, 44.1, 39–2. NM 2028 shows a woman with similar stance and head inclined like Myrrhine by the Reed Painter. NM 1999 shows a young man, about to embark with the boatman Charon, who again has the same slightly bowed head. Emotion is generally conveyed through the pose of the head in the Classical age; see Robertson, A History of Greek Art 331.

33 Photograph in Robertson, op. cit. pl. 122a.

34 Diep.; Frel 82; but see the comments of Karusu, , AM 76 (1961) 93.Google Scholar

35 e.g. Karusu, , AM 76 (1961) 90–106Google Scholar; Stupp. 112–15.

36 e.g. b.f; Guide to the Athenian Agora fig. 126 with hat and beard, London B639, in Boardman, J., Athenian Black Figure Vases (London 1974) fig. 261Google Scholar; r.f; Met. Mus. of Art 1972.11.10, 28.57.23, Munich 2797 all in Robertson, op. cit. pls. 73b, 106a, 108c. Stupp. 113 dates the Hermes type somewhat later than 420 BC, but, because of the way the chlamys is draped over the figure, before 410.

37 See von Steuben, Der Kanon des Polyklet 11–31, Taf. 15–18.

38 See Carpenter, Rhys, Greek Sculpture (Chicago 1960) 44 pl. xlviibGoogle Scholar; Harrison, Evelyn B., ‘Athena and Athens in the East Pediment of the Parthenon’, in The Parthenon, Bruno, Vincent J. (ed.) (New York 1974) 244 n. 35, 247, 258.Google Scholar

39 Robertson, op. cit. 330.

40 Robertson, , The Parthenon Frieze (London 1975) pls. 14–17.Google Scholar

41 Schmaltz, 90, emphasizes that until the early decades of the fourth century the reliefs on the marble lekythoi present compositions that reflect specific deaths (Todesfalle).

42 I am grateful to Professor John S. Traill for providing me with the relevant information.

43 The publications and discussions of this inscription (Ep. Mus. 13132) are Clairmont, LM; Robert, Louis, ‘Le Prêtre et la divinité’, Hellenika xi–xii. 543Google Scholar; Pfohl, Gerhard, Greek Poems on Stones vol. 1: Epitaphs (Leiden 1967) 109Google Scholar; Peek, Werner, Griechische Vers-inschriften Band i: Grab-epigramme (Berlin 1955) 1961Google Scholar; Lewis, David M., ‘Notes on Attic Inscriptions (II)’, BSA 50 (1955) 1–7Google Scholar; Kakridis, I. Th., ‘Ta Epigrammata tis Myrrinis’, HELLENIKA 12 (1952–1953) 143–5Google Scholar; Papademetriou, I., ‘Attikai’, EA (1948–1949) 146–53.Google Scholar Robert, loc. cit. n. 1, misunderstands L. H.Jeffery's review of Peek, in JHS 78 (1958) 144–5.Google Scholar Professor Jeffery does not question whether our inscription is an epitaph. Her question refers rather to Peek's no. 2041.

44 Cf. Kakridis, loc. cit. and Peek, loc. cit.

45 M. Alexiou, Ritual Lament 104–8.

46 EA (1948–9) 148.

47 Thuc. 6. 59. 3. I am grateful to M. F. McGregor for this reference and for help with the epigraphic aspects of this paper.

48 Alexiou, op. cit. 104–5. See also n. 54 below.

49 Russell Meiggs and David Lewis, GHI no. 44.

50 Note the usage in Horn. Od. vi. 42–3: …

51 That in the last decades of the fifth century Athenians still thought that a significant name conveyed distinctive qualities about a hero is shown by a passage from Eur. IT 32–3: See also Nagy, B., ‘The Naming of Athenian Girls: A Case in Point’, CJ 74 (1979) 360–4.Google Scholar

52 e.g. is the earlier form, the later being Od. xviii. 254, xix. 127, xx. 79, xxiv. 244; Il. x. 534, xxiii. 440, Od. iv. 26, 140, xix. 203, Hes. Th. 27, Pi. P. 1.68; Pi. N. 4. 5, O. 5.24; Pi. O. 6.81; h.Hom. 31. 13, 32. 8, Pi. P. 2. 6, 3. 75, N. 3. 64, Aesch. Supp. 939, Ch. 208, 713 and esp. 733;

53 Eur. Alc. 610–746 portrays Alcestis' father-in-law as wishing to honour her with the words: (619). The fact that he braves the wrath of his son to take part in this ceremony indicates how great was the importance attached to praise of the deceased in the burial ritual. Alcestis' heroic stature is clearly thought to be enhanced by the approbation of Pheres. Humphreys, , JHS 100 (1980) 101–5Google Scholar, finds that ‘the majority of archaic funerary monuments were set up by parents in commemoration of their children (104). Dr. Humphreys also concludes (loc. cit.) that the aim of the archaic monument was to present the commemorated one ‘as an archetypal figure of timeless human significance’, IG ii2 5239, dated to the fourth century, makes clear that the husband was still alive, but only the father in the relief is identified by name; the husband is not portrayed nor is his name mentioned.

See Clairmont, Gravestone and Epigram (Mainz on Rhine 1970) 56 and pl. 26.

Here the words put into the mouth of the deceased have not been authorized by the husband but by someone else. Since only the name of the father appears in addition to Hegilla's, he must be thought to have approved these words. Though he has the capability, it is as if custom does not allow the husband to determine the nature of the praise to be expressed; at least, not if the father is there to do so.

54 Alexiou, , Ritual Lament 8, 9, 161–205Google Scholar for attitudes at the grave. Garland, R. S. J., ‘Geras Thanaton: An investigation into the Claims of the Homeric Dead’ BICS 29 (1982) 69–80.Google Scholar

55 LM 106.

56 For a similar form of tombstone, see Kurtz and Boardman, Greek Burial Customs 123–7 and fig. 23; Karouzou, S., ‘Un cimitière de l'époque classique a Athènes’, BCH 72 (1947–1948) 385–91.Google Scholar

57 First suggested by Karouzou, Christos I., ‘Τηλαυγὲς μνῆμα’ Charistirion eis A. K. Orlandon iii (Athens 1966) 273 and repeated by Clairmont, LM 109.Google Scholar

58 e.g. Hom. IL. ii. 814; vi. 419; Qd. ii. 222; xi. 75; Hes. Sc. 477. For the use of in inscriptions, see Eichler, Fr., ‘ΣΗΜΑ und ΜΝΗΜΑ’ AM 39 (1914) 138–43Google Scholar, and Humphreys, , JHS 100 (1980) esp. 101–3.Google Scholar

59 e.g. Archaic period, statue base of the Anavyssos kouros, NM 3851; Classical period, small stone pyramid from the Istanbul Mus. no. 3868 (published in Clairmont, Gravestone and Epigram 10 and pl. 36).

60 Even though continues to appear in epitaphs as late as the second century after Christ, e.g. IG ii2 13174, Pausanias seems to have abandoned the usage. He uses and in 7. 17. 8; 8. 11. 1 –2; and 8. 16. 2–5 to refer to the same memorial. Where Pausanias uses only one or two of these words to describe a monument, the distinctions are more difficult to ascertain.

61 e.g. Peek, , Griechische Vers-inschriften Band i nos. 57, 72, 95, 96, 138, 147, 148, 160, 167Google Scholar; Pfohl, , Greek Poems, vol. i nos. 33, 49, 74, 112, 117.Google Scholar

62 A can exist apart from the remains of the deceased. E.g. Talthybios had a at Aegeum, his traditional home, and a at Sparta, Paus. 7. 24. 1. Clairmont's suggestion (LM 109 and n. 27) that the two monuments stood close together in some form of façade would surely require that he retain But the mason and poet probably did not include these words in the epitaph because one could not view the epitaph and the (i.e. the lekythos) at the same time. Furthermore, that there is a correlation between ‘the height of the unworked portion of the pillar’ and ‘a three-stepped base’ is difficult to maintain. Since marble lekthoi vary in size, surely the height of the base would also fluctuate. What the prescribed height of a three-stepped base for NM 4485 should have been seems almost impossible to ascertain.

63 e.g. Peek, , Griechische Vers-inschriften Band i nos. 83, 218Google Scholar; Pfohl, , Greek Poems, vol. i nos. 94, 107.Google Scholar The cenotaph is published in Richter, G. M. A., A Hand Book of Greek Art (London, 1960) 379Google Scholar fig. 506.

64 That the gravestone travelled so far (see Clairmont, LM 105) seems unlikely. The stone shows no marks of wear or usage (for instance, as a lintel or threshold). I think we have it much as it was left by the original mason. Hence, if it was reused in subsequent ages, it probably was in a wall or something of that sort, where it merely filled space. Since there is ample stone available for such purposes in the area (near Mt. Hymettos) there would have been no need to carry such a heavy stone the distance required if both monuments had originally been set up near the Diochares Gate. Furthermore, there are many grave plots, often near deme centres, scattered throughout Attica. Cf. Kurtz and Boardman, Greek Burial Customs 91 and map 1. This stone might well have come from one of those near modern Zographo (e.g. Hestiaia), though a deme is not a sine qua non.

65 There has been considerable emphasis in the literature on the ‘democratic’ nature of the selection process of the priestess as laid out in IG 3 35. A selection by lot certainly does not preclude a girl from an aristocratic family being chosen. In fact, use of the lot may well have facilitated it.