Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:12:10.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epitaphs and citizenship in Classical Athens*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

Elizabeth A. Meyer
Elizabeth A. Meyer
Affiliation:
University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Death is bad for those who die, but good for the undertakers and the grave-diggers’. (Dissoi Logoi i 3)

And for archaeologists and for epigraphers as well, even though epitaphs, and especially simple or formulaic ones, are probably the most understudied and unloved area of ancient epigraphy. Yet the mere fact of an inscribed epitaph indicates deliberate and intentionally enduring commemoration, and therefore embodies a social attitude; epitaphs thus constitute a matter of historical importance that can be studied for the very reason that so many—in Athens over 10,000—survive. Most Athenian epitaphs which have been found have been dated, and for approximately two-thirds of them a general find-spot has been recorded (very few are actually found in situ with a body or grave-goods). Temporal and spatial variations within the distribution of Athenian epitaphs (Part I) prompt not only the question of why aspects of this habit should change over time, but why the habit of epitaphs should exist at all; the answer suggested here links the function and distribution of Athenian epitaphs to changing concepts of (and importance attached to) Athenian citizenship. For epitaphs function as more than testimonials to grief: they represent what survivors saw as defining the deceased (Part II), and the significantly greater number of epitaphs in fourth-century Athens derives from Athenians' emphatic definition of themselves as citizens at that time (Part III). Finally, the Athenians's use of tombstones has no parallel in the classical Greek world (Part IV), for the Athenians' developing perceptions of their own city and of their own special relationship, as citizens, to it, were also unparalleled.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 113 , November 1993 , pp. 99 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1993

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

1 Lattimore, R., Themes in Greek and Latin epitaphs (Urbana 1962) 14Google Scholar; Klaffenbach, G., Griechische Epigraphik 2 (Göttingen 1966) 56–60Google Scholar; Woodhead, A. G., The study of Greek inscriptions 2 (Cambridge 1981) 43–46.Google Scholar See also below n. 22.

2 For the fourth-century-BC decline, Hansen, M. H. et al., ARID xix (1990) 28Google Scholar, suggest that the ‘Athenians grew out of their habit of having everything recorded on stone’. For the third-century-AD decline, see Meyer, E., JRS cx (1990) 74–96.Google Scholar

3 An extreme example is provided by the eleven-name stele of Meidon of Myrrhinous (SEG xxiii [1968] nos. 161Google Scholar, 137–8, 155–60, 166). Single-name labels and fuller demotic names can frequently be seen together on the same monument: the type is discussed by Hastings, H. R., BullUnivWisc cccclxxxv 5.2 (1912) 99–148 at 119–129, 126.Google Scholar This habit of multiple names on one stele is also far more characteristic of the fourth century than any other time: Humphreys, S. C., The family, women and death (London 1983) 79–130Google Scholar at 111, using a limited sample, gave an approximate proportion of 228/600 (38%), while I count 1147/3163 (36.3%) — as opposed to only 410 examples from all subsequent centuries, of which 105 are undated. Finally, 51.4% (766/1491) of the fourth-century ‘unknowns’ are associated with relief sculpture, where these inscriptions often function as labels, and relief sculpture appears on demotic tombstones four times as often as on those for foreigners.

4 Travlos, J., Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika (Tübingen 1988) 340–363Google Scholar; Garland, R., The Piraeus from the fifth to the first century BC (London 1987) 139–170.Google Scholar

5 Young, R. S., AJA lii (1948) 377–8Google Scholar; Winter, F. E., Hesperia Suppl. xix (Princeton 1982) 199–204Google Scholar; Kurtz, D. C. and Boardman, J., Greek burial customs (London 1971) 70, 92.Google Scholar

6 Two epitaphs: Bradeen, D., The Athenian agora xvii. Inscriptions: the funerary monuments (Princeton 1974)Google Scholar no. 71 (Timotheos, 353 BC; cf. Paus, i 29.15) and no. 375 (Melanopos and Makartatos, c. 410 BC; misdated by Paus. i 29.6). Jeffery, L. H., ABSA lix (1962) 115–153Google Scholar, suggested that Agora stones could have come from the burials outside the (somewhat closer) Piraeus Gate, yet only five epitaphs from any time period have been published as deriving from that gate or the tombs around it.

7 Destruction or movement of tombs is known for the period right after the Persian Wars (Thuc. i 90.3, Nepos Them. 6). 338 (Aeschin. iii 236; Lycurg. i 44), Philip V's attack in 200 (Livy xxxi 24.18; xxxi 30.5; D.S. xxviii 7), and Sulla in 86 (Plut. Sulla 14, App. Mith. 35); yet many of the famous fifth- and fourth-century tombs were still intact when Pausanias visited the Kerameikos in the second century AD. Later destructions (e.g. 267 AD) may have scattered more recent monuments and their epitaphs a greater distance (see Travlos, J., Pictorial dictionary of ancient Athens [London 1971] 301).Google Scholar

8 Death-rate: note that in the fifth century the plague created fewer, not more, commemorated burials (Thuc. ii 52.4). Population: Hansen, M. H., Demography and democracy: the number of Athenian citizens in the fourth century BC (Herning, Denmark 1986) 9Google Scholar, 11, 43, 65 (quoted), compared to Hansen, M. H., Three studies in Attic demography (Copenhagen 1988) 14–28Google Scholar for fifth-century figures; emigrants, Hansen, M. H., AJAH vii (1982) 187–8 n.4Google Scholar; counter-suggestion, Ruschenbusch, E., ZPE liv (1984) 253–267Google Scholar at 265, interpreted by Hansen (ibid. 1986) 13, 92 nn. 30–31.

9 Economic: cf. de Ste. Croix, G. E. M., C&M xiv (1953) 30–70Google Scholar, Millett, P., Opus i.2 (1982) 219–249Google Scholar, and Strauss, B., Athens after the Peloponnesian war: class, faction and policy 403–386 BC (London 1988) 42–54Google Scholar for contrasting interpretations (and the difficulties of interpreting idealising sources like Dem. xxiii 206–209 and Ar. Eccl. 590–593). Although fourth-century epitaphs were available to most (Nielsen, T. H. et al., GRBS xxx [1989] 411–420)Google Scholar, they were also not cheap (Davies, J. K., Athenian propertied families [Oxford 1971] xix n.3).Google Scholar For the role of wealth in burials, see Morris, I., Death-ritual and social structure in classical antiquity (Cambridge 1992) 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Kurtz and Boardman (n. 5) 139–141; Friis Johansen, K., The Attic grave-reliefs (Copenhagen 1951) 53–64, 152–165Google Scholar; Davies, G., AJA lxxxix (1985) 627–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Quoted: Cannon, A., Current Anthropology xxx.4 (1989) 437–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 438 (chiefly on Victorian grave-monuments). There is not even agreement on elaboration and restraint in fourth-century grave-art: did a great increase (340–317 BC) ‘in the number and elaborateness of style of grave-monuments … call forth Demetrius's sumptuary legislation of 317’ (Davies, J. K., Wealth and the power of wealth in classical Athens [New York 1981] 5)Google Scholar, or was there ‘exhaustion and dissolution’ in the grave-stelai before 317, making Demetrius ‘the executor of an unavoidable fate’ (Möbius, H., Die Ornamente der griechischen Grabstelen 2 [Munich 1968] 44–45)?Google Scholar See Stupperich, R., Staatsbegräbnis und Privatgrabmal im klassischen Athen ii (diss. Münster 1977) 89 n. 4.Google Scholar

12 On the political significance of funerals, see now Seaford, R., Reciprocity and ritual. Homer and tragedy in the developing city-state (Oxford, forthcoming 1994)Google Scholar chs. 3–4, which supersedes all previous discussions.

13 Historians even debate whether the two earlier restrictive actions took place. Most believe that they did; contra, Raubitschek (cited in Clairmont, C. W., Patrios nomos: public burial in Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries BC, BAR clxi ii [Oxford 1983] 278 n. 4).Google Scholar On Solon, see also Plut. Sol. 21, [Dem.] xliii 62, and Humphreys (n. 3) 85–87. On the date of the second action, see (e.g.) Friis Johansen (n. 10) 120–121; Eckstein, F., JDAI lxxiii (1958) 18–29Google Scholar; Zinserling, V., WZJena xiv.1 (1965) 29–34Google Scholar; Clairmont, C. W., Gravestone and epigram: Greek memorials from the archaic and classical period [Mainz 1970] 11–12Google Scholar; Stupperich i (n. 11) 77–86, 219–221. Plaster-decoration: Boardman, J., ABSA 1 (1955) 51–66Google Scholar interprets as terracotta votive plaques hung on the grave-mound; see also Brooklyn, J. P., Attic black-figure funerary plaques [diss. Iowa 1981]Google Scholar; herms are probably to be understood as sculptural ornamentation in general, Stupperich ii (n. 11) 52–53 n. 3 (to p. 72). Limiting attendance: Humphreys (n. 3) 90.

14 Stewart, A., Greek sculpture: an exploration (New Haven 1990) 109–110Google Scholar; see d'Onofrio, A. M., AION(archeol) iv (1982) 135–170Google Scholar and x (1988 [1990]) 83–96; parallels in encomia of dead, Thomas, R., Oral tradition and written record in classical Athens (Cambridge 1989) 103–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Day, J. W., JHS cix (1989) 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Svenbro, J., AION (archeol) x (1988 [1990]) 63–71Google Scholar on oral kleos.

16 Humphreys (n. 3) 89–90; Stupperich i (n. 11) 77–85; Morris (n. 9) 128–155.

17 Grave-reliefs after 430: Friis Johansen (n. 10) 109 (lack of signature); Robertson, M., A history of Greek art (Cambridge 1975) 365Google Scholar (stereotypical compositions and humdrum execution); Vedder, U., Untersuchungen zur plastischen Ausstattung attischer Grabanlagen des 4. Jhr. v. Chr. (Frankfurt 1985) 155Google Scholar, the changes in sculpture reflect the fact that a wider citizen-group has access to grave-art; interpretive quotation from Humphreys (n. 3) 105 (and see also 127 n. 34, at end). Family: Humphreys (n. 3) 106–7.

18 Personal commemoration during this time is chiefly attested by lekythoi, and here Humphreys (n. 3) sees some of the same trends: e.g. an unfulfilled desire for impressive monuments. One loutrophoros (Amsterdam 2455) actually seems to depict a casualty-list (Lissarrague, F., AION (archeol) x [1988 (1990)] 100)Google Scholar, and the individual stelai depicted on lekythoi would seem to carry words, even though the writing is only unreadable squiggles. Whether this means that stelai were erected out of perishable materials like wood or that Athenians merely wished to erect stelai (or even larger monuments, which are depicted but which certainly do not survive) but did not feel they should, is unclear and debated: see Clairmont ii (n. 13: 1983) 277–8 n. 4 and now Shapiro, H. A., AJA xcv (1991) 629–656 at 646–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Few epitaphs belong to this period (see Appendix). Disputes over them, and over fifth-century grave-reliefs, are intense but of small import here given the numbers: see Clairmont, C. W., Boreas ix (1986) 27–50Google Scholar, with a list (48–49) of fifteen reliefs dated (incorrectly, he argues) by other scholars to 450–430. On when Athens started commemorating war-dead in the Kerameikos (as opposed to when sumptuary restrictions were imposed), see Pritchett, W. K., The Greek state at war iv (Berkeley 1985) 117–124Google Scholar and Loraux, N., The invention of Athens: the funeral oration in the classical city (Cambridge, MA 1986) 28–37.Google Scholar

19 Grave-stelai described by Clairmont i (n. 13: 1983) 46–54; Bradeen, D. W., Hesperia xxxiii (1964) 16–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar and CQ n.s. xix (1969) 145–159; Loraux (n. 18) 22–23. Public commemoration: Ziolkowski, J., Thucydides and the tradition of funeral speeches at Athens (New York 1981)Google Scholar, Loraux (n. 18). Effects on private commemoration: Clairmont (n. 13: 1970) 41–46; cf. Dem. lvii 37.

20 Gravestones: numbers from Richter, G. M. A., The archaic gravestones of Attica (London 1961)Google Scholar and Jeffery (n. 6). Grave-reliefs: Conze, A., Die attischen Grabreliefs (Berlin 1893–1922)Google Scholar; the total adjusts for intercalated and omitted numbers, and leaves out 35 entries from before the Persian Wars. Conze also includes miscellaneous material like stele-palmettes and unattached sculpture-heads, all of which have been included in the count but which probably drive the percentage of inscribed pieces down further than it should be. On writing cf. Schmaltz, B., Griechische Grabreliefs (Darmstadt 1983) 101–106.Google Scholar Epigram-length: Clairmont (n. 13: 1970) 50; Friis Johansen (n. 10) 63.

21 Humphreys (n. 3) 119.

22 See, e.g., Pfohl, G., Untersuchungen über die attischen Grabinschriften (diss. Erlangen 1953) 13–56Google Scholar — rich, but few in number when compared to the total of fifth- and fourth-century inscriptions. Tod, M. N., ABSA xlvi (1951) 182–3Google Scholar claimed that metrical epitaphs and laudatory epithets were common, but he was thinking in absolute and not proportional terms, was contemplating epitaphs from all Greek cities, and was working with any epitaph between the sixth century BC and the third century AD. Peek, W., Griechische Vers-Inschriften (Berlin 1955)Google Scholar presents 2101 epigrams (not counting 37 for polyandria) from all over the Greek world and from all centuries of antiquity — a mere one-fifth of the Athenian epitaphs studied here; for Athens, Hansen, P. A., CEG (Berlin 1983) nos. 73–105Google Scholar and (1989) nos. 475–623 gives a total of 181 epigrams from fifth- and fourth-century Attica, which is 5.7% (181/3163).

23 Friis Johansen (n. 10) 16; Robertson (n. 17) 366; Hoffmann, G., AION(archeol) x (1988 [1990]) 81Google Scholar; cf. Osborne, R., JHS cvii (1987) 105Google Scholar on relationship of subject-matter to Parthenon sculptors.

24 Contra J.W. Day (n. 15) 17, even patronymics are relatively uncommon in sixth-century Attic epitaphs (either 6/56, 10.7%, or 16/56, 28.6% — ten noted that the father put up the monument), ethnics very uncommon (3/56, 5.4%), using Jeffery's (n. 6) collection of 69 (13 had no name preserved).

25 The earliest use of the demotic on a tombstone seems to be Jeffery (n. 6) 134 no.36 (Marathon, dated c. 500). The next (the earliest known to Whitehead, D., The demes of Attica 508/7-ca. 250 BC: a social and political study [Princeton 1986] 70 n. 14)Google Scholar is IG i2 1003 (Athens, first half of fifth century?). After Osborne's and Clairmont's redating of the IG i2 epitaphs (see Appendix), only one epitaph with a demotic (IG i2 1041, from Myrrhine) remains attributed to the fifth century (contra Nielsen et al. [n. 9] 413 n. 6, who claim ‘a dozen private funerary monuments recording Athenians with demotics’ —they mean six monuments with eleven names, of which three [IG i2 1065, 1077, 1083] have been moved by IG i3 to after 403/2 and another [IG i2 1063] moved by Clairmont, C. W., Boreas ii [1979] 45Google Scholar to the early fourth century, on stylistic grounds).

26 Whitehead (n. 25) 71 (quoted), and ibid. 71 n.18: first used by the grammateus in the tribute-lists in 451/0 (IG i3 262); but as Osborne, R., Demos: the discovery of classical Attika (Cambridge 1985) 66Google Scholar points out, in decrees of the Assembly, the use of the demotic in the proposer's name did not become standard until 352/1. Whitehead (n. 25) 71–72 attributes the demotic on tombstones after 403/2 to a stipulation of the re-enacted Periclean citizenship laws, but (a) ‘demotic’ is entirely within brackets in IG i3 59, lines 6 and 37; and (b) no enforcement mechanism has been suggested for it. Thus the change in name has been misinterpreted by Guarducci, M., Epigrafia Greca II (Rome 1969) 7Google Scholar and Epigrafia Greca III (Rome 1974) 149, and by Klaffenbach (n. 1) 58, both of whom think that after 403/2 all citizens had to give their name with a demotic; Klaffenbach goes on to say that therefore all the ‘unknowns’ had to be foreigners.

27 Rhodes, P. J., A commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politela (Oxford 1981) 497–8Google Scholar; Sealey, R., The Athenian republic: democracy or the rule of law? (University Park, PA 1987) 154 n. 27.Google Scholar Adults: Nielsen et al. (n. 9) 416–17 n. 18, announcing a further study.

28 Golden, M., EMC xxx (1986) 245–269, esp. 257–269.Google Scholar Oratory: Edwards, J. B., The demesman in Attic life (Menasha, WI 1916) 31–47, 60.Google Scholar

29 Morris (n. 9) 132–134.

30 Whitehead, D., The ideology of the Athenian metic (Cambridge 1977) 33–34.Google Scholar

31 Peek, W., AthMitt lxvii (1942) 102–103Google Scholar noted that the name with only the demotic (and no patronymic) was comparatively rare, and counted a little over 100 examples (out of more than 2700 names), ‘the preponderance of which were from the fourth century’; I count 223 from the late fifth and fourth centuries (out of 4519 names, using totals from Nielsen et al. [n. 9] 411), 127 from all subsequent time-periods (including 22 that were not dated).

32 It might also mean ‘born from a lawful marriage’, but this is disputed (see Rhodes [n. 27] 496–7, 499–500). Republication 403/2: Ath. xiii 577b; Patterson, C., Pericles' citizenship law of 451–450 BC (Salem, NH 1981) 140–147Google Scholar; Osborne, M., Naturalization in Athens Hi and iv (Brussels 1983) 152 n. 69.Google Scholar This seems to have been accompanied by a stipulation that its requirements not be made retroactive for children born before 403/2 (Dem. lvii 30); and another proposal was passed at the same time that decreed children of a male citizen and a female alien nothoi (Sealey [n. 27] 23).

33 Humphreys (n. 3) 103 (multiple fifth-century burials in the same grave, although interpretation of this as family, without epigraphic evidence, is problematic); 111–117 (17 sets of inscriptions found together that belong to people probably related to each other).

34 Manville, P. B., The origins of citizenship in ancient Athens (Princeton 1990) 210Google Scholar, contra Sealey, R., AJAH viii (1983) 116–7.Google Scholar

35 Dress: Thuc. i 6.3–4; cf. also [Xen.] AthPoI. 10 and Geddes, A. G., CQ xxxvii (1987) 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The wealthy were in fact very circumspect about displaying their wealth in ways that did not benefit the community (Thuc. ii 40.1), because the community's opinion could bring exclusive activities or display into disrepute: see [Xen.] AthPol. 13 on physical exercise and the pursuit of culture, or Dem. xxi 159 on the disgraceful luxuries of Meidias; in general Dover, K.J., Greek popular morality in the time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford 1974) 175–180Google Scholar and Ober, J., Mass and elite in democratic Athens: rhetoric, ideology, and the power of the people (Princeton 1989) 205–247.Google Scholar Burial: Morris (n. 9) 103–155; cf. parallels in dedications in hero-cult and Opferrinne in J. Whitley, ‘The monuments that stood before Marathon: tomb cult and hero cult in archaic Attica’ (unpublished ms).

36 Patterson (n. 32) 82–139; Sinclair, R. K., Democracy and participation in Athens (Cambridge 1988) 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Ziolkowski (n. 19) 22–24; Pritchett (n. 18) 106–117; Loraux (n. 18) 37–39.

38 Friis Johansen (n. 10) 146–7; Clairmont (n. 13: 1970) 43; M. Robertson (n. 17) 364; Stupperich i (n. 11) 243–245.

39 Hansen (n. 8: 1988) 22 cols. a+b calculates 41,710.

40 Contra Loraux (n. 18) 20, 309–310, who finds this passage ‘ambiguous’.

41 Difficulty of granting citizenship: M Osborne (n. 32) 158–159, 161–163 (a second vote of ratification at the next Assembly meeting added to the original decree). For the date of 385/4, see ibid. 152; in 385/4 metroxenoi were no longer permitted to qualify as citizens although between 403/2 and 385/4 they had been, and to this date Osborne attaches other undated but early-fourth-century changes in citizenship-requirements. Block grants: M. Osborne (n. 32) 202–204. Less than full citizenship: enktesis, ateleia, and isoteleia could all be granted to metics and foreigners, and it is clear both that a hierarchy of honours existed, with full citizenship at the top, and that foreigners in the fourth century struggled up this ladder (M. Osborne [n. 32] 145–6, 148, 195, 197). Atimia: on its historical development into revocation of some of the privileges of citizenship, see Sealey (n. 34) 97–129, esp. 98–111 (with reservations); there is much debate over when and how atimia changed, but all agree that by the fourth century it has changed from simple outlawry to a penalty that functions in a specifically civic context. Atimia and more transgressions: a deduction from the list in Hansen, M. H., Apagoge, endeixis and ephegesis against kakourgoi, atimoi, and pheugontes (Odense 1976) 72–74Google Scholar (and see his general discussion 54–90).

42 Assembly-pay: [Arist.] AthPol. 41.3, dated by references in Aristophanes's Eccl. 205–7, 303–310 (see David, E., Aristophanes and Athenian society of the early fourth century BC [Leiden 1984] 29–32Google Scholar). Orphans: Stroud, R., Hesperia xl (1971) 280–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Loraux (n. 18) 26–7. There were other economic privileges in existence before the fourth century: owning property, inheriting property from Athenian citizens, purchasing silver-mine leases, sharing in distributions, performing in public festivals (Davies, J. K., CJ lxxiii.2 [1977/1978] 106Google Scholar; Sinclair [n. 36] 31–32).

43 Gift: e.g. Dem. xlv 78; [Dem.] lix 13 and 88–89; xxiii 199–201; a sentiment also expressed in the inscribed decrees (cf. M. Osborne [n. 32] 147–9). Loss of citizenship: e.g. Hyp. iii 28; [Lys.] xx 35, xxi 25. Citizenship and burial: Hyp. iv 18, Hyp. i 20. Skulduggery and bribery: Din. fr.A7 Burtt; Dem. xxiii, passim; [Dem.] lix passim. Lying about citizenship: Lys. xiii 70.

44 Ober (n. 35) 268–70 and passim; Dover (n. 35) 32; cf. Dem. xlv 78, [Dem.] 1 passim.

45 Grants of citizenship: M. Osborne (n. 32) 211–212. 445/4: D. Whitehead (n. 25) 99–100, 106–109.

46 Debate, cf. the proposal of Phormisius in 401/0, which proposed restricting citizenship to landholders only (Lys. xxxiv, quoted in D. H. de Lysia 32); Davies (n. 42) 118 dates this proposal to 403, Ostwald, M., From popular sovereignty to the sovereignty of law (Berkeley 1986) 504 n. 24 to before 401.Google Scholar On the ‘heroes’ of Phyle see Osborne, M., Naturalization in Athens (Brussels 1981) 37–41Google Scholar, Naturalization in Athens ii (Brussels 1982) 26–43, and Stroud (n. 42) 300. For varying assessments of the atmosphere, see Mathieu, G., REG xl (1927) 65–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Lévy, E., Athènes devant la défaite de 404: histoire d'une crise idéologique (Paris 1976) 209–257Google Scholar, Ostwald (ibid.) 500–509, and Davies (n. 42) 106–114 and 118, who believes in ‘a sense of siege, of barricades being manned’ (110), in Obsessions, anxieties, and insecurities’(111). For attitudes toward citizenship in the early fourth century, see Sinclair (n. 36) 24–27; for an alternative interpretation of Davies's thesis, see Patterson (n. 32) 129–139.

47 229: Osborne, M., AncSoc vii (1976) 107–125Google Scholar, especially 108–114, 118–120, 123. Selling citizenship: M. Osborne (n. 32) 141 (based on Cassius Dio liv 7.2 and Cic. pro Balbo 30), by the first century citizenship-grants were no longer being inscribed, which also confirms that they were no longer an honour and a gift, and in fact suggests that they were no longer even being closely overseen by the Assembly. For the same pattern observed from the angle of intermarriage with foreigners and the openness of the ephebate, see Davies (n. 42) 111.

48 Whitehead (n. 30) 33–34, 163–5.

49 ‘Blütezeit’: Whitehead (n. 25) 359; deme inscriptions, ibid. 361 n. 49, 401–497.

50 Whitehead (n. 25) 362–3.

51 Herodes wished his freedmen to bury him in Marathon: Phil. VS 566. The number of epitaphs with demotics in other demes (i.e. found in a different deme from the demotic) will be one focus of the studies now underway under the sponsorship of M. H. Hansen; see Damsgaard-Madsen, A., Studies in ancient history and numismatics presented to Rudi Thomsen (Aarhus 1988) 55–68Google Scholar (on migration into Athens). Since it is clear from small samples (e.g. the epitaphs of Rhamnous) that a high percentage of those commemorated with a demotic in a deme could in fact be from that deme (i.e. Rhamnusians), the use of the demotic must function as more than just a geographic indicator of a family's original deme for an individual who had moved. Damsgaard-Madsen's work (following up on preliminary research done by Gomme, A. W., The population of Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries BC [Chicago 1957, repr. of 1933] 44–48)Google Scholar also prompts a fundamental question of approach (60): are people actually buried or commemorated where they lived, i.e. is an epitaph a good indicator of residence? The importance of the Kerameikos as a place for commemoration might have inflated the number of people who apparently, but may not actually, have moved to Athens. For this reason I stress that this article presents commemorative rather than migratory patterns: the former may indeed signal the latter, but this has not yet been proved to my satisfaction. Two sides of the discussion are set out by Hansen, M. H., GRBS xxiv (1983) 227–238Google Scholar and Whitehead (n. 25) 352–358.

52 ‘Sturdily independent’: Whitehead (n. 25) 327–338; Edwards (n. 28) 28–30. Piraeus: Whitehead (n. 25) 394–6; Garland (n. 4) 4–5, 60, 69–72.

53 Garland (n. 4) 69, 72; corrected by Jameson, M., Phoenix xliv.1 (1990) 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Note also that the fourth-century habit of burying Athenian dead with dikastic pinakia is more heavily concentrated in the cemetery near the Piraeus—where those ‘who had the greatest stake in the democracy and would have treasured their pinakia most highly’ were buried (Kroll, J., Athenian bronze allotment plates [Cambridge, MA 1972] 9 n. 1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 [Arist.] AthPol. 34–40 (with Rhodes [n. 27] 415–482); Xen. Hell. ii 3–4; Krentz, P., The thirty at Athens (Ithaca 1982)Google Scholar; Ostwald (n. 46) 460–509; Loening, T.C., The reconciliation agreement of 4031/402 BC in Athens (Stuttgart 1987).Google Scholar

55 411: see Thuc. viii 53.3, 65.3, 66.1, 67.3–69.1, [Arist.] AthPol. 29.5; 403/2: see Xen. Hell. ii 3.2, 3.18, [Arist.] AthPol. 36.2; and [Arist.] AthPol. 37 (death of Theramenes). In 403/2 it was not clear that those outside the politeia were no longer politai, but very clear that citizenship per se offered no protection (cf. Patterson [n. 32] 144). cf. also [Xen.] AthPol. 3.12–13 on the dangers posed to a state by those deprived of their citizenship (written before 411).

56 This action is initially a response to threatened pollution; for the Alkmeonidai, see [Arist.] AthPol. 1 ; Delos had been purified in this way twice (543/2, Hdt. i 64.2 and Thuc. iii 104; 425: Thuc. i 8, iii 104, Plut. Nic. 3, D.S. xii 58.6–7). In the fifth and fourth centuries denial of burial and posthumous disinterment were both more punishments for a civic offense, treason, than responses to feared pollution (although there is undoubtedly a link between the two). See, e.g., Thuc. i 138 (Themistocles buried in Attica secretly); Xen. Hell. i 7.22 (Phrynichus); [Plut.] Vit. X Or. (= Mor.) 833a and 834a (oligarchs Antiphon and Archeptolemus); Lycurg. i 113–115 (Phrynichus); Din. i 77 (suggested for Demosthenes); Isoc. xiv 55; Plut. Phoc. 37 and Val. Max. 5.3.ext.3 (Phocion); [Plut.] Vit. X Or. (= Mor.) 849b-c (Hypereides). Non-burial and disinterment are not the same action, but both deny a citizen Attic soil in which to be buried. It is perhaps from a solidification of this idea (that non-Attic burial implies expulsion from the community of citizens) that its reverse could have developed (that Attic burial was one good proof of membership in the community of citizens), assisted by a strong association of commemoration with citizenship-status. Hence perhaps the requirement that would-be magistrates at their dokimasia be able to point to the tombs (eria) of their ancestors ([Arist.] AthPol. 55.3, Dem. lvii 67, 70; Pollux viii 85), a requirement of otherwise unclear and disputed relevance (cf. Garland, R., The Greek way of death [Ithaca 1985] 104).Google Scholar Hence also emphasis in the later fourth-century orators (Lycurg. i 8, Dem. lvii 67, Aeschin. ii 74 and 152, iii 259, Din. i 110) on ancestral tombs when patriotic themes were sounded and when the speakers reminded the Athenians of the ways in which they differed from others (cf. Ober [n. 35] 264), especially when such ‘ancestral’ tombs seem not to have been more than several generations old (Humphreys [n. 3]).

57 The dating is unclear, probably between 410 and 394 (the latter date shakily based on a putative attribution of Lys. ii to 394). Laying-out of streets: see Kurtz and Boardman (n. 5) 93; G. Karo, An Attic cemetery (Philadelphia 1943) 30 (‘a few years after 400 BC’); Kovacsovics, W. K., Die Eckterrasse an der Gräberstrasse des Kerameikos (Kerameikos xiv Berlin 1990) 6Google Scholar (terracing for tombs associated with pottery sherds that provide a terminus post quern of 3rd-4th quarter of the fifth century); Knigge, U., Der Kerameikos von Athen: Führung durch Ausgrabungen und Geschichte (Athens 1988) 111–129Google Scholar (south side of Street of the Tombs, all after 394). Road to Academy widened: Kurtz and Boardman (n. 5) 110, based on Ohly, D., AA lxxx (1965) cols. 301–303Google Scholar (end fifth century; and see Clairmont ii [n. 13: 1983] 263 n. 39, for various widths reported). Horoi: IG ii2 2617–19, Agora i 5770, and one found in 1956, not in situ, the first four in place by the mid-fourth century (Travlos [n. 7] 300, who therefore dates the end of the reorganization to this time).

58 Polyandrion of the Lacedaemonians: IG ii–iii2 11678 and Willemsen, F., AthMitt xcii (1977) 117–157Google Scholar; Clairmont i (n. 13: 1983) 203–4. Their inclusion in the demosion sema has occasioned some apology (see Loraux [n. 18] 22 and Tod, M.N., G&R ii [1932] 111)Google Scholar, but they played an important role in the restoration of the democracy despite fighting against the men of the Piraeus, and so they too could be seen, in a sense, as fighting for Athens; Xen. Hell. ii 4.29–38. Lysias (ii 63) calls the tombs of these dead Lacedaemonians ‘witnesses to the arete’ of the democrats. Polyandrion of the Athenians: Clairmont i (n. 13: 1983) 205 lists uninscribed tombs next to the Lacedaemonians as a polyandrion of the Athenians, basing this on a muddled reference in Lys. ii 63 (‘they erected a tropaion over their enemies, and closer by (de) find—nearby to this mnema—witnesses to their arete in the tombs of the Lacedaemonians’).

59 Clairmont i (n. 13: 1983) 31 concluded that the predominant position of the polyandrion of the Lacedaemonians meant that foreigners were excluded from the demosion sema, but this draws too fine a distinction. Foreigners were regularly honoured by burial there, as the casualty-lists attest and indeed as Lysias (ii 66) states had happened in the past. cf. also Pritchett (n. 18) 149–151.

60 Clairmont i (n. 13: 1983) 39–40, 44–45; Garland, R., ABSA lxxvii (1982) 150–151Google Scholar; Knigge (n. 57) 37–38, 109–110.

61 Clairmont i (n. 13: 1983) 45; see Thomas (n. 14) 107–8 for a parallel shift in speeches.

62 On his reliability, see Habicht, C., Pausanias' guide to ancient Greece (Berkeley 1985) 63.Google Scholar Monuments of individual war-dead: e.g. Bradeen (n. 6) no. 375 (Melanopos, and Makartatos, ), IG ii–iii 26217Google Scholar (Dexileos).

63 Morris (n. 9) 145–155.

64 Quotation: Kurtz and Boardman (n. 5) 244.

65 Corinth: tombs, see Paus, ii 2.4; and in excavation (e.g.) to the north, Biegen, C. et al., Corinth xiii: the north cemetery (Princeton 1964) 65–300Google Scholar, 235 burials 500–300 BC (p. 66: ‘so little has survived of later types of [grave-] monuments that the practice of setting up grave stones must have been limited at best’); near Lechaion, C. W. J., and Eliot, M., Hesperia xxxvii (1968) 345–367Google Scholar; west of Corinth, Robinson, H. S., Hesperia xxxvii (1969) 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Classical epitaphs: there is one published (and dated) in IG (IG iv 394), none in Meritt, B. D., Corinth viii. J : Greek inscriptions 1896–1927 (Cambridge, MA 1931)Google Scholar, none in Kent, J. H., Corinth viii.3: the inscriptions 1926–1950 (Princeton 1966)Google Scholar (although no. 24, published as a votive, has a mourning relief and might therefore be an epitaph), one in SEG xi (1950) no. 157 (actually a painted pinax, fifth century); cf. also in brief Hansen (n. 8: 1982) 181 and 188 n. 43. Indeed, Corinth conspicuously lacks much classical epigraphical material, a phenomenon now thought to be genuine and not the result of the vagaries of excavation (see Kent ibid. 1–2). Argos: tombs, Paus. ii 21, 22.8–9 and see Tomlinson, R. A., Argos and the Argolid (Ithaca 1972) 24Google Scholar; epitaphs (on preliminary count) only 10: IG iv 629 (fourth); SEG xi (1950) no. 347 (fourth/third; a Mantinean); SEG xiv (1957) no. 320 (400–350); SEG xvii (1960) no. 155 (fourth); SEG xxviii (1978) no. 398 (500–450); SEG xxix (1979) nos. 362 (fifth), 363 (350–300), 364 (late classical); SEG xxxi (1981) no. 313 (fourth); SEG xxxii (1982) no. 374 (fourth). Sparta: Plut. Lyc. 27, Mor. 238; Paus. iii 12.8, 14.1, 16.6, and vi 1.9 (a memorial to Archidamus at Olympia, ‘certainly the only king of Sparta who missed burial [hamarton taphou]’); IG v 1.701–710, 918, 921, 1124–5, 1320; women, Plut. Lyc. 27.3; and in general Pritchett (n. 18) 241–246.

66 For Corinth and Argos, see Salmon, J. B., Wealthy Corinth: a history of the city to 338 BC (Oxford 1984) 354–362.Google Scholar Others in the fourth century: Locrians and Epizephyrean Lokrians; Keos and Eretria; Keos and Histiaia; Cyrene and Thera; Miletus and Olbia; Miletus and Cyzicus; Miletus and Phygela; see Gawantka, W., Isopolitie: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen in der griechischen Antike (Munich 1975) 207–220.Google Scholar This is not to say that the Athenians never considered isopoliteia; rather, two of the group-grants of citizenship during the Peloponnesian War (Plataians and Samians) resembled it, although experts do not see either case as true isopoliteia (see M. Osborne [n. 46: 1981] 28, 33–37 and [n. 46: 1982] 11–16, 25–26; Gawantka ibid. 174–197).