Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:20:31.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Wandering maidens in the Acropolis Propylaia: some considerations on the spatial setting of the cults of the Charites, Artemis and Hermes, their administration and related cult images

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2023

Constanze Graml*
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper aims to develop a holistic view on the cults of the Charites, Artemis and Hermes which can plausibly be located in the Acropolis Propylaia. Based on the combined analysis of the spatial and architectural setting, which changed in the course of the erection of the Mnesiklean Propylaia in 437–432 BC, along with the imagery and textual evidence for these cults, I propose that due to the altered spatial distribution and the rotated building axes, initially separate cults were fused together. Consequently, iconographical shifts occur in the modes of depiction of these three divinities. The Charites, who were attached in Archaic imagery to Hermes, in the Classical period become iconographically intertwined with Artemis. The iconographic shift is detectable especially in the new cult images1 for Hermes Propylaios and Artemis Epipyrgidia with the Charites, which had been created by the sculptor Alkamenes, presumably by order of the Athenian state. This article should not be seen as a contribution to the analysis of copies (Kopienkritik) for known statue types or an architectural study; instead, its focus lies in the concepts of visualization of divine images, which were developed for a highly specific spatial setting in the cultic landscape of the Athenian Acropolis.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies

I. The spatial setting of the Propylaia: framing an entrance to the city’s sacred core

The entrance to the Acropolis rock had been of major importance since the beginning of human activities at the site, comprising a fortified settlement with neighbouring burials. Indications for habitation exist already in LH I.Footnote 2 The later fortification wallsFootnote 3 had their opening on the western side of the hill. This access was kept in use until modern times, since the terrain structure facilitated the easiest ascent (Supplementary fig. 1). Fortification needs led to the construction of the western gate running north–south, which was guarded by the tower-like promontory of the later purgos of Athena Nike.Footnote 4 As no indications for ritual practice in the area of the passageway through the wall can be identified for this early phase,Footnote 5 due to the many later phases and alterations of the Acropolis and the difficult excavation history, no hypotheses regarding cult continuity reaching back to the Bronze Age will be attempted.Footnote 6

Even with the conversion of the Acropolis rock into the religious centre of the developing polis in the eighth century BC, the Acropolis kept its citadel-like character with a closed fortification wall.Footnote 7 On the southwest corner of the rock, the remains of the massive Cyclopean wall were kept visibleFootnote 8 and contemporary buildings were integrated. The Archaic entrance building, here termed the pre-Mnesiklean PropylonFootnote 9 (fig. 2), lay embedded in the Mycenaean wall and consisted of a broader central passageway, which could be used for processions. The passage followed a northeast–southwest alignment and was flanked by two halls. The inner part was set off by pillars.Footnote 10

Fig. 2. The Pre-Mnesiklean Propylon with the slightly rotated entrance axis viewed from southwest (plaster model © Acropolis Museum, 2013, photo: Socratis Mavromatis).

After the Persian destruction of the Acropolis, building activity at the site concentrated at first on the wall structures and repairsFootnote 11 and resumed with new buildings, notably the construction of the Parthenon, only after several decades. With the latter’s completion for the most part in 438 BCFootnote 12 (the finalization of the sculptures and other decorative parts was not concluded until 432 BC), the reshaping and restructuring of the Acropolis concentrated on the entrance situation under new spatial and aesthetic premises: the newly established temple buildings and colossal statuesFootnote 13 called for adjustments to the building axes that highlighted the Acropolis’ new aesthetics. Thus, for the erection of the Mnesiklean Propylaia (fig. 3) from 437 to 432/1 BC, the passageway was again rotated, now further to the east. A spatial relation between the Parthenon, which was visible from the inside of the new entrance building and the statue of Athena Promachos, which was positioned in the axis of the entrance, is highly plausible, although the exact chronological interrelations of the respective monuments are still under discussion (Supplementary fig. 4).Footnote 14

Fig. 3. The entrance building of Mnesikles viewed from the southwest (plaster model © Acropolis Museum, 2013, photo: Socratis Mavromatis).

The building concept of the entrance also comprised the aforementioned Tower of Athena Nike, where her cult had been located since the Archaic period.Footnote 15 In connection with the construction of the new entrance, the originally separate hill promontory underwent major changes, as its street level was raised by almost 2 m (Supplementary figs 5 and 6). This measure led to a spatial incorporation of the tower into the building’s ambitious conception: the now elevated platform of the tower was annexed to the south wing of the Propylaia.Footnote 16

Gates/gateways were per se generally adorned with specific cults for transitory deities due to their sacred character,Footnote 17 especially those of major sanctuaries, and the Propylaia was no exception, since it housed several cults. The place-bound nature of cultic veneration raises the question of how cults reacted to changes of their attributed places and spaces.Footnote 18 The development of the Propylaia offers insight into the adaptability of cults, as changes can be tracked and even explained, when all available testimonies are read against each other.

II. How to detect cult: testimonies for cult in the Propylaia area

Cult practice at and in the entrance area of the Athenian Acropolis can be deduced from different types of evidence. However, only by a close reading of the entirety of all potential sources is it possible to understand their placement in this area and identify the actual cult recipient. Therefore, a thorough analysis of the actual literary, epigraphic and material testimonies ranging from the Archaic to the Roman period is indispensable, since even individual pieces of evidence already present difficulties and uncertainties regarding the respective time-bound content. Epigraphical sources for cults do not refer to their location on the Acropolis Hill and, like the statuary evidence, the script-bearing materials were likely relocated during the manifold modifications of the architectural units.Footnote 19 Literary sources that describe the setting of the Propylaia will thus provide the starting point for this investigation even if they were written long after the time frame in question and despite their inaccuracy regarding actual cult practice.

Several ancient authors, mainly from the Roman Imperial period,Footnote 20 are relevant to this case study, since they describe the Propylaia, including the statues and images which were visible in their time. This temporal gap is problematic, since the statues could have been moved to the Propylaia at a later stage.Footnote 21 The following are known from written testimony: several equestrian statues,Footnote 22 in the immediate vicinity to the west of Athena Nike,Footnote 23 the Artemis Hekate/Hekate Epipyrgidia/Artemis Epipyrgidia,Footnote 24 the Hermes Propylaios,Footnote 25 the Charites of Socrates,Footnote 26 a bronze lioness,Footnote 27 the Aphrodite Sosandra,Footnote 28 a statue of Diitrephes,Footnote 29 less distinguished portraitsFootnote 30 and Athena Hygieia.Footnote 31 Beside a bronze statue of a boy made by Lykios and a Perseus,Footnote 32 just behind the Propylaia lay the sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia with two cult statues.Footnote 33 Since all these statues were regarded as highly esteemed opera nobilia, they have long been the focus of sculpture research and consequently, various statue types have been proposed.Footnote 34 Regular ritual practice or an administered cult, which is, for example, attested in cult calendars and treasury lists,Footnote 35 can only be substantiated for Athena Nike,Footnote 36 Artemis-Hekate-Epipyrgidia,Footnote 37 Hermes,Footnote 38 the Charites,Footnote 39 Athena HygieiaFootnote 40 and Artemis Brauronia.Footnote 41 The known placements of these cults after the erection of the Mnesiklean Propylaia shows that some were located in the vicinity of the building, but definitely not inside it. Athena Nike’s altar and temple were situated on the purgos, Athena Hygieia’s altar was attached to the outer surface of one of the Propylaia columns and the temenos of Artemis Brauronia was clearly distinguished by its surrounding walls. Before proposing that the images of Hermes, Artemis-Hekate-Epipyrgidia and the Charites were located inside the wings of the Propylaia building, the complex evidence for these cult recipients, starting already in the late Archaic period, needs to be reassessed, since the textual testimonies reveal discrepancies in the proposed denomination of the interlinked image types. The clarification of these inconsistencies between cult actually practised and locally specific image concepts is the first step for tracing the shift in imagery analysed here.

III. Iconographic evidence: securing identifications

Iconographic evidence linked to the cults on the Acropolis is generally affected by the problem of dislocation.Footnote 42 This is also the case for objects in relation to the three respective cult recipients. Sculpture fragments from the sixth century BC found on the Acropolis and predating the erection of the Mnesiklean Propylaia are only attested for Hermes and the Charites. Their original location on the hill is unknown, since they came to light in secondary contexts. Footnote 43

The oldest example is an Archaic relief fragment of a young beardless Hermes wearing a pilos and carrying a syrinx (Supplementary fig. 7).Footnote 44 This depiction is comparable to the so-called Aglauridenrelief (Supplementary fig. 8),Footnote 45 in which Hermes is depicted as an aulos player leading three female dancers and a young boy. Nikolaus Himmelmann-Wildschütz identified the scene as a depiction of Hermes with the Nymphs,Footnote 46 who have included a young boy in their dance as a numpholeptos. Taking the specific setting of the Auglauridenrelief into account, Himmelmann-Wildschütz’s specific identification of the three females has to be questioned, since the Nymphs are not elsewhere attested on the Acropolis; moreover, the Archaic Athenian iconography of ‘weibliche Dreivereine’ Footnote 47 is highly vague.Footnote 48 Instead, a sacrificial calendar from the Acropolis,Footnote 49 dating to 480–460 BC, accounts unequivocally for the worship of the Charites at the site. This slightly later epigraphic evidence makes it plausible to identify the three maidens as the Charites and further allows the identification of another late Archaic fragmentary relief depicting a frontally positioned woman dressed in a peplos (Supplementary fig. 9) as a Charis.Footnote 50 The young boy could be interpreted as the dedicant.Footnote 51

A third monument to the Charites, the so-called Charites of Socrates, provides a complex and intriguing set of material and literary evidence. According to literary testimonia, the relief depiction of the Charites of Socrates was situated in the entrance area of the Acropolis.Footnote 52 Ancient authors identified the sculptor Socrates as the Athenian philosopher, who was the son of a sculptor.Footnote 53 Considering when the famous Socrates lived, the identification of a series of reliefs showing three dressed young maidens (Supplementary fig. 10) as the Charites of SocratesFootnote 54 seemed problematic, since the stylistic traits shown in the reliefs, such as heavy drapery, heavy chins and typical hairstyles, point to a dating in the period of the Severe Style.Footnote 55 Although this chronological problem was solved by identifying this Socrates with a Theban sculptor who had actually worked during the early Classical period, a connection of the relief to the Acropolis has to be regarded with caution. Since the fragments found in the area of the AcropolisFootnote 56 are Roman copies and not the actual ‘Urbild’, Olga Palagia argued that these fragments could have been transferred to the Acropolis as building material in medieval times.Footnote 57 Stressing the de facto unspecific iconographic traits of the three women depicted, she proposes an identification as Nymphs. According to Palagia, the Charites of Socrates, which were executed as cult images, are shown instead as half-figure miniatures with a chthonic implication, depicted in other votive reliefs with archaistic traits dating to the last quarter of the fifth century BC.Footnote 58 Palagia’s assumption that actual sculptures or specific sculpture types are shown in the background of votive reliefs has to be questioned: depictions of other deities in the background as references to location indicating neighbouring cults of the recipient deity of the relief are attested for several votive reliefs.Footnote 59 Yet the depictions of specific statues, for example, through the depiction of statue bases, which also coincide with known statuary, are not retraceable in the Classical votive reliefs.Footnote 60 Moreover, the half-figured depiction would fit the presentation through a ‘window’, providing an outlook to the background. The actual frame is more clearly worked in comparable votive reliefs and emphasizes the spatial relation beside, but clearly separated from, the divinities shown in the foreground; a distinction through colouring could have been used instead. The complexity of the evidence makes an unambiguous identification of the Charites of Socrates impossible. If the identification of the ‘Urbild’ of the Severe Style relief series, dating to 480–460 BC, as the Charites of Socrates is correct,Footnote 61 it would antedate the Mnesiklean Propylaia and thus provide another example of a depiction of one of the attested cult recipients.

Regarding their function, these relief depictions seem more likely to have served as votives than as cult images, since reliefs are less commonly used for this purpose.Footnote 62 Nevertheless, the images refer to the local cults of the Acropolis and the ʻAglauridenreliefʼ in particular represents a specific Acropolis-bound understanding of a cultic community, since the depiction was especially conceptualized for this context.Footnote 63 The relation visualized between Hermes and the Charites is iconographically documented for the late Archaic period. In the respective cult decrees, which date to a few decades later, the two cults are never jointly attested.

The imagery of Hermes drastically changes around the time of the erection of the Mnesiklean Propylaia. With the statue type of Hermes Propylaios,Footnote 64 explicitly linked to the entrance gates by Pausanias and attributed to the sculptor Alkamenes thanks to other testimonies,Footnote 65 Hermes adopts a completely different iconography from the Archaic examples from the Acropolis.Footnote 66 The complex information gained from the different copies, more or less directly dependent on the Alkamenian original,Footnote 67 securely documents the following elements in the ‘Urbild’.

On top of a pillar-like, aniconic body is positioned the anthropomorphic bearded male head with features of Archaic hairstyle (fig. 11). The mode of depiction is not a new one, since herms are certainly known from the Archaic period.Footnote 68 However, the creation of Alkamenes dating to the last quarter of the fifth century BC, and thus close to the erection of the Mnesiklean Propylaia, was considered unique and a masterpiece already in antiquity, a perception which led to copies explicitly referring to the Alkamenian original.Footnote 69 In contrast to the earlier images from the Acropolis, the Alkamenian Hermes lacks the Charites as shown in the ‘Aglauridenrelief’, since he is depicted as a single figure in semi-anthropomorphic mode.

Fig. 11. Schematic drawing of the Alkamenian Hermes Propylaios with its core concept combining aniconic and anthropomorphic traits (C. Graml).

The evidence for the third cult recipient, Artemis-Hekate-Epipyrgidia, is strongly dependent on the chronology of the individual testimonies, ranging from the late Archaic to the Roman Imperial period. Material evidence predating the Mnesiklean building is difficult to pin down. Based on the finds of several late Archaic krateriskos fragmentsFootnote 70 with depictions relating to the Arkteia ritual (Supplementary fig. 12) practised by young girls for Artemis at Brauron and Mounichia,Footnote 71 cult activity for this deity seems plausible in the late sixth century BC,Footnote 72 yet the deity’s appearance and attributes on the Acropolis remain unclear.Footnote 73 For the Classical period, a colossal female head was proposed with good arguments by Giorgos Despinis to be that of a statue for Artemis Brauronia; however, it does not bear any specific features that secure this identification.Footnote 74

The second iconographic attestation for Artemis, which like the Hermes Propylaios marks a significant change in concept, needs a more detailed explanation. I propose that it is the original of the image type of the three-figured Hekateion,Footnote 75 also created by the sculptor Alkamenes. Comparable in concept to the Hermes Propylaios, it combines aniconic and anthropomorphic elements: the aniconic, column-shaped depiction of Artemis surrounded by the three maidens identifiable as the Charites.

IV. Pausanias’ iconatrophy,Footnote 76 research history and the renaming of the Hekateion typeFootnote 77

The identification of the three-figured statue from the Acropolis as Hekate, which is only known to us through copies and variations, is based on the singular testimony of the second-century AD writer Pausanias, who briefly describes it as follows: ‘It was Alkamenes, in my opinion, who first made three images of Hecate attached to one another, a figure called by the Athenians Epipyrgidia (on the tower); it stands beside the temple of the Wingless Victory’ (2.30.2). Footnote 78 The mention of Hekate drew scholarly attention to this Alkamenian statue, because the goddess was well known from a famous passage in Hesiod’s Theogony Footnote 79 as well as from the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Footnote 80 and many later sources, ranging from Classical plays Footnote 81 and curse tablets Footnote 82 to magical papyri. Footnote 83 The characterization of Hekate based on the written sources shows an ambivalent goddess: benevolent in the Archaic period, Footnote 84 she was often linked to Artemis from Classical times on, acquiring a sinister touch and an association with magical rituals. Footnote 85 These varying traits and spheres of power were related to this peculiar image type, which was interpreted as a three-bodied goddess already in antiquity. Footnote 86 Early art-historical classical archaeology relied on Pausanias’ words uncritically. Footnote 87 These approaches focused on the possible formal appearance and style of the three-bodied statue made by Alkamenes and on identifying the copy closest to the archetype. Footnote 88 Research was also conducted regarding the provenance and development of the figure of Hekate by collecting all available material, including literary records, inscriptions, vase paintings and sculpture. Footnote 89 Inscribed statues attesting the use of different names for the same type, such as Artemis, Artemis Soteira, Hekate, Hekate Soteira, Artemis Hekate Epekoos or Artemis Phosphoros, Footnote 90 did not lead to doubts regarding Pausanias’ testimony. Both fields of research tried to link all existing data, on Hekate as well as the three-bodied statue type, and often neglected the chronological and geographical spread of these sources. Therefore, many ‘specifics’ were recognized and led to the image of a unique, strange goddess. Footnote 91 A strict focus on the time of the establishment with regard to the specific place of the erection and the relevance for the cult on the Athenian Acropolis, Footnote 92 however, allows for a re-evaluation of Pausanias’ testimony and, moreover, a renaming of the statue.

Pausanias states that Alkamenes was the inventor of the three-bodied depiction of Hekate, which was made by combining three agalmata together. Footnote 93 Pausanias also knew other image types used for Hekate, such as the single-figure xoanon from Aegina. Footnote 94 In referring to the statue as being composed of agalmata, he uses a term (agalma) that is not clearly specifiable, and could have different meanings, such as ornament or even cult statue. Footnote 95 Therefore, the actual function of the Alkamenian statue cannot simply be deduced from Pausanias’ identification. The use of προσϵχόμϵνα ἀλλήλοις to describe the appearance of the three figures can be clarified by another passage in Pausanias, where he uses the same expression for the description of the three-bodied giant Geryon on the Kypselos chest in Olympia. Footnote 96 Therefore, the three agalmata seem to have been merged together to a certain extent, in the way familiar from the different depictions of Geryon. The statue stood in the vicinity of the Tower of Athena Nike. Based on Alkamenes’ creative period Footnote 97 and the assumed stylistic development, a date around 430–420 BC seems most plausible for the statue’s erection. Footnote 98

So far, modern scholarship, relying on the accuracy of Pausanias’ identification of Alkamenes’ statue, has tried to challenge his account by suggesting the possibility of examples antedating the three-figured character of the statue. Regarding the ʻxoanonʼ Footnote 99 shape of the marble Hekateia, Erika Simon proposed wooden antecedents, which could have existed on the Greek mainland but long since decayed. Footnote 100 Instead of a statuary antecedent, Semni Karouzou assumed from the uninscribed depiction on an Athenian black-figure lekythos Footnote 101 that the idea of Hekate’s triplicity was already established at the beginning of the fifth century BC. Footnote 102 This idea has convincingly been proven wrong by Nicola Serafini, who was able to show that the depiction follows a common arrangement of figures, which had been clumsily executed on the lekythos. Footnote 103 Both propositions merely assume that the idea of a three-figured Hekate can be traced back in time and both lack sufficient material proof. No material evidence for the three-figured depiction of Hekate is yet known from Greek culture prior to the late fifth century BC; provided of course that it was indeed Alkamenes’ intention to depict Hekate!

Based on the analysis of copiesFootnote 104 including the statue’s depiction in ʻofficialʼ media closely linked to the Athenian polis, namely numismatic evidence (fig. 13), the following traits are highly plausible and reveal its core concept (fig. 14): it consisted of a central pole or pillar. This pillar was surrounded by three frontally oriented female figures, standing shoulder to shoulder. The female figures were each dressed in a girdled peplos. The style of the drapery referred to Archaic korai. It is highly plausible that torches were held by the female figures. Footnote 105

Fig. 13. Athenian tetradrachm of the New Style Silver coinage, by Tryphon and Polycharmos 91/90 BC with a depiction of the three-figured statue holding torches (Staatliche Münzsammlung München, photo: Nicolai Kästner).

Fig. 14. Schematic drawing of the Alkamenian statue group of Artemis and the Charites with its core concept of combining aniconic and anthropomorphic traits (C. Graml).

The connection of Pausanias’ description to the widespread three-bodied image type was made in the 19th century without in-depth source criticism. Footnote 106 Written testimonies with references to regions other than Attica were intertwined with the image type and the resulting, apparently vast amount of textual and pictorial attestations was interpreted as an indication of the great importance of the goddess in antiquity. Scholarship tends to argue that a Hekate cult existed from the Archaic period Footnote 107 onwards due to mentions of her in the Theogony of Hesiod Footnote 108 and in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Footnote 109 but in doing so disregards the informative value of the testimonies and their regional, non-Attic nature. When it comes to concrete cult practice, neither of these literary sources are of help regarding Hekate, as she is not a major figure in them. Footnote 110 The alleged oldest known attestation of cult practised in Attica, a late Archaic terracotta statuette depicting an enthroned female figure with a votive inscription on the back, Footnote 111 however, has to be excluded, since the inscription is a modern forgery.Footnote 112

In search of the earliest attestation of an actual Hekate cult in Attica, one might consider Athenian red-figure vase painting with named depictions of Hekate as an independent figure dating from the first half of the fifth century BC onwards. Footnote 113 Nevertheless, these iconographic sources only testify to knowledge of her existence. Definite veneration and cult practice, however, are not inferable. The name Hekate is quite rare in epigraphic sources from Attica. The first attestation, from the Attic deme Paiania, dates to the third quarter of the fifth century BC and refers to a priesthood of Hekate (IG I3 250) Footnote 114 that is closely related to the Eleusinian rites. This would strengthen the relation to Demeter and Kore, which is attested in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. More immediately related to the Acropolis is the reference in the treasury lists for the Other Gods for the year 429/8 BC (IG I³ 383). Footnote 115 Lines 124–26 list the property of the gods Hermes and Artemis Hekate, a coin. However, in the context of the Athenian Acropolis, ‘Hekate’ is used only as an epithet for Artemis. This fact has to be emphasized: the Hekate on the Acropolis is not an independent goddess, as is attested for other regions such as Caria; Footnote 116 instead the name is used as a descriptor for Artemis.Footnote 117 Hermes and Hekate are probably also recorded together in several fragmentary lists from the Athenian Agora, more precisely the area of the Tholos (IG I³ 406 Footnote 118 and 409, Footnote 119 420–405 BC). Unfortunately, the very fragmentary state of the inscriptions makes it impossible to clarify whether the name is being used as an epithet. Later cult calendars from demes of Attica, namely Erchia (SEG 21:541, Footnote 120 375–350 BC) and Thorikos (SEG 33:147, Footnote 121 380–375 BC), also refer to Hekate but for Erchia the use as an epithet is unequivocal, Footnote 122 while the Hekate passage in the inscription from Thorikos is too fragmentary to verify its exact use. This is also the case for a dedication from Koroni (SEG 21:780, Footnote 123 end of the fourth century BC), where the reading proposed by Oikonomides is disputed. Footnote 124 If the inserted form Hekate is correct, the inscription would be a further attestation of the use of the name as an epithet of Artemis.

The impression given by the use of the name Hekate in literary sources referring to Athens and Attica is different. In the work of the Athenian playwrights Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, Hekate is mentioned with different characteristics, Footnote 125 but most of the references lack precision compared to official records of ritual norms. Some of them clearly show possible use as an epithet and therefore an immediate connection to Artemis, Footnote 126 but none of these refers to the Alkamenian statue. Footnote 127 Deciding if Hekate is conceived of as an independent goddess or as related to Artemis is often difficult. Thus, the evaluation of literary sources with regard to actual cult practice is less accurate than epigraphically attested ritual norms.Footnote 128 Literary testimonies do not generally clarify what the cult as practised constituted, and are difficult to interpret due to their ambiguity and often subjective distance from the events they describe. Footnote 129 The most important observation, though, is that none of these passages refers to the sculpture of Alkamenes. Footnote 130 Therefore, these sources do not seem sufficient for a reappraisal of Pausanias’ naming of the three-figured statue on the Acropolis.

The literary sources of the third century BC differ from the older ones, as they refer to Hekate autonomously and, moreover, mention the goddess with her triple aspect, relating to the three faces or three bodies and her connection to forks in the road. Footnote 131 When mentioning Athenian cult places for Hekate, later written testimonies refer to known sanctuaries for Artemis Footnote 132 and complicate the distinction between the two goddesses. Footnote 133 The archaeological records for sanctuaries of Hekate in Athens and Attica show no unambiguous evidence for their often hypothetical attribution. Footnote 134 So, apart from the Eleusinian Hekate known from literary, epigraphic and iconographic evidence, it seems plausible that there was a development of Hekate at Athens into an independent goddess from an epithet of Artemis that referred to a split-off character trait of the main deity. Footnote 135

The denomination EpipyrgidiaFootnote 136 is even more rarely attested in epigraphical sources from Attica. Only two references, in inscriptions dating from the first century BC from Eleusis and the first century AD from the theatre of Dionysus in Athens, mention the term in relation to an Athenian priesthood for Artemis Epipyrgidia and the Charites. Footnote 137 Therefore, Epipyrgidia is also an epithet for the goddess Artemis and both inscriptions prove, due to their joint mention and the composition of the inscription on the theatre seats, Footnote 138 the existence of a shared cult for Artemis and the Charites in Attica. In literary sources, Pausanias is the only writer who uses this epithet. Footnote 139 Its meaning refers, he claims, to the location of the Alkamenian statue on the purgos of Nike, the southwestern rock promontory of the Acropolis. Footnote 140 Pausanias admittedly is writing over 600 years after the erection of the statue, and he is the only one to connect Hekate to this epithet. Footnote 141 Due to this time span and developments in cultural and religious traditions, the accuracy of Pausanias’ transmission of cult names has to be regarded with suspicion. Footnote 142 The distinct epigraphic sources referring to Epipyrgidia in Attica securely attest a joint cult for Artemis and the Charites, at least in the first century BC. Although there is also a time span of 400 years between the establishment of the Alkamenian statue and the attested cult for Epipyrgidia, these epigraphic sources clearly preserve a ritual norm, which is a rather conservative element in religious practice. The potential reference to the cult of Artemis Epipyrgidia in IG II³ 1 531 would bridge the gap and make it more plausible that the Alkamenian statue depicts Artemis Hekate Epipyrgidia. Footnote 143 Since the epigraphical cult attestation from Attica refers to two cult recipients, Artemis and the Charites, and the iconographical analysis highlighted two main components of Alkamenes’ work, namely the three female figures draped in archaizing clothing and the central pole or pillar, the depiction might refer to all attested cult recipients by combining anthropomorphic with aniconic elements. Footnote 144

Depictions of three female figures, often in straight seriality, are known in Greek art since Archaic times. Footnote 145 Named depictions of groups of three females attest their identification as Nymphs, Moirai, Horai or the Charites. In Archaic Athens, the iconographic scheme of the three Charites is in evidence, for example, through the named depiction on the black-figure dinos painted by Sophilos. Footnote 146 In general, the Charites are only depicted in two different ways in Athenian art. They are shown in movement, Footnote 147 holding each other’s hands while dancing, or standing hieratically. Footnote 148 No early statue of the Charites sculpted in the round is known, Footnote 149 but all existing reliefs with provenance from Attica show rather unspecific traits: Footnote 150 the Charites are presented as three beautiful young women in elaborate clothing. Regarding the previously analysed traits of the Alkamenian statue, no difference can clearly refute the possible naming of the three females as Charites. Moreover, the Charites are clearly attested as cult recipients on the Athenian Acropolis by the fifth-century BC inscription IG I³ 234, Footnote 151 whereas no other ‘weiblicher Dreiverein’ is epigraphically attested to have received cult on the Acropolis. Artemis is also listed in this pre-Mnesiklean cult calendar separately.

If the connection of the Alkamenian statue concept to the cult of Artemis Epipyrgidia and the Charites is correct, the second component, the central pillar-like structure, which was already recognized by Georg Rathgeber as meaningful, Footnote 152 must allude to the second cult recipient, Artemis. This meaningfulness becomes evident in contrast to the often-compared Archaic perirrhanteria with female figures.Footnote 153 These purely formal predecessors as well as formal, and partially monumental, successors, such as the Acanthus Column with three dancing maidens at Delphi, have a specific function, differing from the Alkamenian statue: they were aesthetically configured pedestals bearing objects of focal interest.

Since the Alkamenian statue certainly had no such function, the central pole’s meaning was explained as a relic of the evolution of depictions of Hekate. As the goddess is, according to written sources, the guardian of crossroads, the existence of a primitive proto-Hekateion Footnote 154 was assumed. Theodor Kraus reconstructed from a Late Antique source (without any clear reference to Hekate) that the first Hekateia were wooden pillars with masks hanging from them, looking towards the different paths meeting at the crossing. Footnote 155 This reconstruction relies strongly on the later literary tradition, where Hekate appears as triodotis, goddess of the three ways. Footnote 156 Due to the missing link to Hekate and, moreover, the inconclusive identity of Alkamenes’ statue as an independent Hekate, this interpretation seems unconvincing. Erika Simon tried to identify the central pillar as a round altar, around which the three females danced. Footnote 157 This observation of the central element being framed by the female statues is highly important, but has not been associated with the attested cults of the Acropolis. The meaningfulness of the pillar is deducible from its specific reproduction in all media, be it two- or three-dimensional. Instead of seeing this pole or pillar as the depiction of a meaningful object, the possibility of an aniconic, namely a non-anthropomorphic, depiction of the goddess Artemis seems promising. Footnote 158 By taking into account the statue’s possible concept with two main components and relating those to the attested shared cult for Artemis Epipyrgidia and the Charites, it could be hypothesized that the pole functions as the iconographical, yet aniconic, element referring to Artemis. Several studies have convincingly shown that non-anthropomorphic depictions are attested for many divinities; Footnote 159 there seem to be regions, like Arcadia, where the aniconic cult image was more favoured than in others Footnote 160 and where aniconic depictions of Artemis are actually preserved. Footnote 161 Nevertheless, Attica was also conversant with aniconic cult images, as depictions on red-figured vases plausibly attest. Footnote 162 Although, in Attica, an aniconic Artemis is documented neither in vase paintings nor in sculpture, this should not be seen as proof of general non-existence. Instead, the choice of an aniconic marker, which was highly dependent on the context, might have been strengthened in the later variations of the three-figured image type by emphasizing the pillar shape and by reducing the three full-bodied females to three heads attached to the pillar. Footnote 163 The original significance of Alkamenes’ initial image concept was strictly bound to its setting on the Acropolis. Only with the spread of the image type were other meanings added, such as the three-figured Hekate. By separately analysing the sole textual attestation of the triple-bodied sculpture made by Alkamenes and the vast iconographic evidence for this statue type, it becomes evident that the presence of an independent Hekate in Athens may have been overestimated. This impression was created by the uncritical combination of Pausanias’ reference with the passage from Hesiod that cannot be applied to Athenian cult and, moreover, the highly complex iconographical data. Archaic literary sources with no tie to Athens should not be uncritically brought together with the impression of a second-century AD traveller, whose cultural imprint and understanding of religion is not congruent with that of Classical Athens. Pausanias’ perception of the triple-bodied statue was certainly coloured by contemporary religious beliefs and not by the knowledge of the religious Zeitgeist of late fifth-century BC Athens. For Athens at this time, no institutionalized cult for an independent figure called Hekate is detectable on the Acropolis. The statue of Alkamenes, standing in the most prominent sacred area of Athens, probably frequently viewed by the inhabitants and visitors of the city, and most certainly in use as a cult statue, had no connection to an independent Hekate at the time of its erection.Footnote 164 More plausibly, in view of the conservativism of cult, is the connection to the attested cult of Artemis Epipyrgidia and the Charites. Only later adaptations of the image, initially created for the specific Athenian context, tend to confuse the three Charites with the triple-bodied Hekate. Footnote 165 Eventually the often-copied three-bodied image shaped the literary record of the goddess, who became trimorphos and triprosopos in the Hellenistic literary tradition. The fragment attributed to Charikleides Footnote 166 provides the oldest attestation known so far (fig. 15).

Fig. 15. Timeline of the epigraphical and literary sources with their temporal relation to the Alkamenian image. IG II3 1 531 has not been included due to its ambiguous relation to Artemis Epipyrgidia (C. Graml).

The statuary concept of Alkamenes was such a success that both his works, the Hermes Propylaios and the Artemis Epipyrgidia with the Charites, were immediately reproduced, including outside of Athens and Attica. With this translocation of the Propylaia-based image concept, the successive adaptation and reinterpretation of the images began,Footnote 167 ultimately ending in Roman iconatrophy.

V. Coming back to iconographic testimonies for cults in the area of the Propylaia

With regard to the previously identified cults in the area of the entrance of the Acropolis, images of Athena Nike, like the first image of Artemis Brauronia, are only known from written testimony and due to non-specific description, no statue type can plausibly be tied to her. Pausanias describes Athena Nike’s and Artemis Brauronia’s earliest images as xoana,Footnote 168 a term that offers no indication of their actual appearance, but certainly evokes their old age and the long tradition of their cults.Footnote 169

With this overview on the interdependence of literary, epigraphic and iconographic attestations, it becomes evident that cult was practised for Athena Nike and Artemis Brauronia already prior to the erection of the Mnesiklean Propylaia in the areas around the entrance of the Acropolis. Athena Hygieia received a cult image only after the erection of the entrance building, although her cult was likely practised there earlier.Footnote 170 Artemis, Hermes and the Charites were put together in two groups; this is detectable in the peculiarity of the images of these three deities on the Acropolis: the Archaic, pre-Mnesiklean cult concept related them to Hermes while after the erection of the Propylaia they were attached to Artemis-Hekate. This means that after the erection of the new entrance building, the Charites ‘wandered’ from Hermes to Artemis.Footnote 171 The placement of the cults can be inferred from Artemis’ epithet Epipyrgidia. The area near the Tower of Nike, commonly associated with a placement of the Alkamenian statue on the purgos,Footnote 172 would be applicable also to the south wing of the Propylaia, which was close to the purgos. The promontory was architecturally emphasized by reducing the south wing, presumably rejecting the idea of a counterpart space to the south, which would have mirrored the Pinakotheke of the north side. The statue of Artemis and the Charites was likely erected in the south wing next to the tower, while Hermes could have been placed as a counterpart in the north wing.

VI. The ‘story’Footnote 173 of the wandering Charites

Based on the testimonies assembled so far, the erection of the Mnesiklean Propylaia seems to have stimulated the development of the cults they housed and their cult images (fig. 16). Already the wings of the pre-Mnesiklean Propylon were likely divided among the three cult recipients, with the north wing initially attached to Hermes and the Charites,Footnote 174 and the south wing to Artemis and the neighbouring Brauronion. With the rotation of the new entrance building, the Charites became part of her cult.Footnote 175 The position of the statue of Artemis and the Charites is not known, but, with regard to the later reading of it as Hekate Epipyrgidia, has always been connected to the purgos, the Tower of Nike, Footnote 176 which had undergone massive changes as the level of the hilltop was raised and the entire promontory joined to the Mnesiklean building complex (fig. 17). The statue group therefore was likely placed in the south wing, keeping the assumed previous relation to Artemis and additionally establishing a new spatial connection to the adjoining purgos.

Fig. 16. Timeline of the iconographic evidence relating to the cult concepts of Artemis, Hermes and the Charites with regard to the likely spatial setting of the cults (C. Graml).

Fig. 17. Schematic drawing of the Mnesiklean Propylaia with proposed location of the Alkamenian statues (C. Graml).

The post-Mnesiklean statues of Hermes and Artemis with the three Charites were all executed by the sculptor Alkamenes, who had previously worked on the Parthenon sculptures. Footnote 177 Mark Fullerton and Nina Werth have already argued for a correlation of the erection of the Epipyrgidia in the 430/20s BC Footnote 178 with the remodelling phase of the Propylaia and the Nike purgos all going back to the Periklean programme for the entire Acropolis. Footnote 179 This background is of great importance for the embedding of the concepts embodied in the statues of Alkamenes. With regard to their congenial concept of mixing aniconic with anthropomorphic elements and including archaic traits, Footnote 180 it seems plausible that Alkamenes was commissioned by the authorities in charge of the Acropolis refurbishment to equip the cult places of the newly erected Mnesiklean Propylaia with new cult images of old, long-established cults. In the course of the remodelling phase, the spatial coherence of the sacred precincts of several deities was impacted by the rotation of the building, which most likely led to alterations. Footnote 181 The Alkamenian statues marked the newly established sacred areas for the three cult recipients and eventually symmetrically framed the passage. By choosing archaizing and aniconic elements, Alkamenes created visual allusions to antiquity and tradition, which generated visual tension in juxtaposition to the progressive architectural setting of the Propylaia: the innovative architectural elements alluded to change overcoming the Persian destruction, while the divine images appeased the longing for continuity, tangibly experienced by allusions to religious tradition.Footnote 182

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S007542692200009X

Acknowledgements

Parts of this paper have been presented on several occasions, such as the research seminars at Bochum University and Hamburg University, the EASR conference 2019 in Tartu and the Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik in Munich. I am grateful to the audiences for their interest and helpful suggestions. Special thanks go to Soi Agelidis for discussing the idea of shared image concepts, to Elisavet Sioumpara for her precious comments on the monuments of the Acropolis, to Ralf Krumeich for his manifold suggestions, which helped clarify the argument and prevented me from errors, and to the two anonymous reviewers for indicating to me several unclear points. Last, but certainly not least, I thank Henry Heitmann-Gordon for accompanying the development of the idea to writing and for making this text readable. For all remaining errors, I of course remain solely responsible.

Footnotes

1 Mylonopoulos (Reference Mylonopoulos and Mylonopoulos2010) on the difficulty of the term ‘cult image’; more recently, Hölscher (Reference Hölscher2017) 13–25. In this paper, I use the term for sculptures and other objects worked in the round that depict deities, are intended to mark the deity’s presence and are set up in spatial relation to the focal point of regularly practised ritual activity.

2 Mountjoy (Reference Mountjoy1995) 13–14; most recently on the absence of a palace centre on the Acropolis, Papadimitriou (Reference Papadimitriou2017), who convincingly embeds the Acropolis in the Attic settlement structure of the time.

3 On the dating: Mountjoy (Reference Mountjoy1995) LH IIIA.2; Iakovidis (Reference Iakovidis2006) LH IIIB.2. Most recently on the Mycenaean Wall and its traceable remains including the other Mycenaean entrances, Sioumpara (Reference Sioumpara, Brysbaert, Klinkenberg, Gutiérrez-Garcia M and Vikatou2018).

5 An early shrine on the west side of the Nike purgos, where two niches were detected, was first excavated by Nikolaos Balanos in the 1930s. The excavation and the actual remains are reconstructed by Mark (Reference Mark1993) 1–3, 12–19. See Lempidaki (Reference Lempidaki, Sioumpara and Psaroudakis2013) 369–70 on the cult tradition starting in the Mycenaean period.

6 On the detectable finds, see Mountjoy (Reference Mountjoy1995) 41 on Iakovidis’ hypothesis of a gate shrine. On cult at gates in general cf. Weißl (Reference Weißl1998); most recently Nawracala (Reference Nawracala2019).

7 Doronzio (Reference Doronzio2017) 50–52; Meyer (Reference Meyer2017) 32–146. Detailed study of the measures of repair after the Persian destruction: Sioumpara (Reference Sioumpara, Palagia and Sioumpara2019).

8 Heights of the later phases are unknown; see Sioumpara (Reference Sioumpara, Brysbaert, Klinkenberg, Gutiérrez-Garcia M and Vikatou2018) 150.

9 Monaco (Reference Monaco and Greco2010); Paga (Reference Paga2017); Sioumpara (Reference Sioumpara, Palagia and Sioumpara2019) 31 referring to current, unpublished research on the Propylon by Manolis Korres.

12 In this year, the Athena Parthenos was finalized and the surplus material was sold off, which means that the construction of the Parthenon building was finished. Testimonies and evaluation in Lehmann and Raeder (Reference Lehmann, Raeder, Kansteiner, Lehmenn, Seidensticker and Stemmer2007).

14 Palagia (Reference Palagia, Buraselis and Koulakiotis2013) refuted the creation of the Athena Promachos in the aftermath of the Battle of Marathon. She dates the creation of the Promachos to the period of the Perikleian building programme. This was strengthened most recently by Foley and Stroud (Reference Foley and Stroud2019), who analysed the inscription IG I3 435 and disconnected it from the Promachos statue. Their proposed connection to the Chalkotheke has to be refuted due to its establishment in the fourth century BC; cf. Sioumpara and Papazarkadas (Reference Sioumpara and Papazarkadas2020) 63 n.1; Dinsmoor (Reference Dinsmoor2004); Hurwit (Reference Hurwit2004).

15 Most recently Meyer (Reference Meyer2017) 23–28.

16 Hoepfner (Reference Hoepfner and Hoepfner1997). I thank Elisavet Sioumpara for pointing me to the meticulous study of Lempidaki (Reference Lempidaki, Sioumpara and Psaroudakis2013).

17 Cf. Weißl (Reference Weißl1998) and Nawracala (Reference Nawracala2019). The regional approach to ancient religion, specially emphasized by Polinskaya (Reference Polinskaya2013), necessitates specific case studies on the respective panthea of poleis and the particular local profile of divinities.

18 Alluded to by Monaco (Reference Monaco and Greco2010) 81: ‘Una delle difficoltà di Mnesicle fu certamente quella di riunire in un edificio strutture tardo arcaiche rispettando, al contempo, impianti cultuali probabilmente più antichi (le Charites, Artemis Epipyrgidia, Hermes Propylaios)’.

19 See Tanoulas (Reference Tanoulas1997) on the medieval appearance of the Propylaia and the massive modifications to the fortifications.

20 Still fundamental in the collection of the written sources is Jahn and Michaelis (Reference Jahn and Michaelis1901). However, their combination of Pausanias with other testimonies and epigraphic evidence is partially outdated. For the most recent overview with bibliography, see Greco (Reference Greco2010).

21 On the complexity of the actual archaeological evidence for equestrian monuments, see Krumeich (Reference Krumeich, Krumeich and Witschel2010) 355–60.

22 Paus. 1.22.4; Diog. Laert. 2.52. Both in Jahn and Michaelis (Reference Jahn and Michaelis1901) 43. Epigraphic evidence attests that the equestrian statues were made by Myron’s son Lykios (IG I³ 511), which makes a dating of 450–430 BC plausible. Nevertheless, they were erected as anathemata relating to war and therefore would not have been related to regular cult practice.

23 See Paus. 1.22.4 on the temple and 5.26.6 and 3.15.7 on the statue. Harpokration s.v. Nike Athena; Nikarchus, Anth. Pal. 9.576; Dem. 24.121. All in Jahn and Michaelis (Reference Jahn and Michaelis1901) 43.

24 Paus. 2.30.2; Hsch. s.v. Propylaia. Both in Jahn and Michaelis (Reference Jahn and Michaelis1901) 44.

25 Paus. 1.22.8; Jahn and Michaelis (Reference Jahn and Michaelis1901) 45–46.

26 Paus. 1.22.8; Jahn and Michaelis (Reference Jahn and Michaelis1901) 46.

27 Paus. 1.23.2; Jahn and Michaelis (Reference Jahn and Michaelis1901) 46–47.

28 Paus. 1.23.2; Jahn and Michaelis (Reference Jahn and Michaelis1901) 47. The statue is claimed to have been a votive of Kallias, which would make it an unlikely candidate for ab initio intended regular cult practice.

29 Paus. 1.23.3; Plin. HN 34.74; Jahn and Michaelis (Reference Jahn and Michaelis1901) 47; on the statue, Krumeich (Reference Krumeich1997) 140–44.

30 Paus. 1.23.4; Jahn and Michaelis (Reference Jahn and Michaelis1901) 47.

31 Paus. 1.23.4; Harpokration s.v. Hygieia Athena. Jahn and Michaelis (Reference Jahn and Michaelis1901) 47.

32 Their location is mentioned on the Acropolis, likely outside the Propylaia: Paus. 1.23.7.

33 Paus. 1.23.7; Jahn and Michaelis (Reference Jahn and Michaelis1901) 48–49.

34 See the recent edition of Der Neue Overbeck for possible attributions of image types. The attribution of the actual statue type has no bearing on the line of argument proposed here. For the statues that are relevant to the analysis of the Propylaia cults, the known copies share a common concept (see below).

35 The varying contents of inscriptions have recently been summarized by Taylor (Reference Taylor, Eidinow and Kindt2015).

36 Altar inscription IG I³ 596.

37 IG I³ 234; IG I³ 383; IG II2 5050; SEG 39:93.

38 IG I³ 383.

39 IG I³ 234.

40 IG I³ 506. For the confirmation by the evidence of images from the Acropolis rock, see below. For the scarce evidence on an earlier Hygieia cult, see: <https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGI3/506#note-1>. Most recently, Meyer (Reference Meyer2017) 23–28.

41 IG I³ 369; IG II3 1 531, formerly IG II² 326; Lambert (Reference Lambert2004); Lambert (Reference Lambert2007) 82.

42 On the complexity of visual evidence, see Gaifman (Reference Gaifman2012); Hölscher (Reference Hölscher2017).

43 Gagliano (Reference Gagliano2014) 41–55.

44 Inv. no. Akr. 622, dated to the second quarter of the sixth century BC.

45 Inv. no. Akr. 702, dated to the late sixth century BC.

46 Himmelmann-Wildschütz (Reference Himmelmann-Wildschütz1957) 13–18.

47 Usener (Reference Usener1903) on the female groups of three and their similarities. The best example for the non-specific iconography of the Nymphs, Charites, Moirai, etc. is the Attic black-figure dinos of Sophilos, in the British Museum in London; for details see n.146. All female groups are shown as beautifully dressed women in straight seriality.

48 The common iconography of the Charites shows them as three young females. Since this iconography is quite unspecific and overlaps with other female ‘Dreivereine’ (cf. Petersen (Reference Petersen1881) 54, who uses this term for the first time with regard to the Hekateion), the epigraphic testimony from the Acropolis is decisive. No other ‘Dreiverein’ is known from the inscriptions referring to cult. On the cult of Hermes with the Charites, see Gagliano (Reference Gagliano2014), who addresses the cult of Hermes, starting with an analysis of the copies of the herms.

49 IG I³ 234; already decisive for Furtwängler (Reference Furtwängler1878) 183.

50 Inv. nos Acr. 586 and 587; Gagliano (Reference Gagliano2014) 47–52.

51 RE 3.2 s.v. Charites. Charis 2150–67, 2165.

52 Plin. HN 36.32: non postferuntur et Charites in propylo Atheniensium, quas Socrates fecit, alius ille quam pictor, idem ut aliqui putant; Paus. 9.35.3–7 Σωκράτης τϵ ὁ Σωφρονίσκου πρὸ τῆς ἐς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἐσόδου Χαρίτων ϵἰργάσατο ἀγάλματα Ἀθηναίοις. καὶ ταῦτα μέν ἐστιν ὁμοίως ἅπαντα ἐν ἐσθῆτι.

53 Testimonies summarized and evaluated in Lehmann and Kansteiner (Reference Lehmann, Kansteiner, Kansteiner, Lehmenn, Seidensticker and Stemmer2007).

54 For a summary of previous literature with a convincing analysis of the known copies and the choice of ancient copyists, see Monaco (Reference Monaco1999–2000).

56 Athens Acropolis Museum inv. no. 1341 α-γ and 2594, neo-Attic relief fragments.

57 On the use of certain Acropolis buildings as early museums, where antiquities from the whole of Athens were gathered: Kokkou (Reference Kokkou2009); Krumeich and Witschel (Reference Krumeich, Witschel, Krumeich and Witschel2010) 32–33.

58 Palagia (Reference Palagia and Palagia2009) 30–33. Palagia (Reference Palagia1989–1990) 356 recognized in the reliefs showing three maidens an ‘affinity to Alkamenes’ Hecate’.

59 Lawton (Reference Lawton2017) 49 with a summary on the reliefs of the Charites next to Athena Nike. For example, on the votive relief for Bendis and Deloptes from Mounichia, now in Copenhagen (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek inv. 462), three maidens guided by a male figure are shown. They are convincingly identified as Hermes and the Nymphs, since a Nymphaion neighbouring the Bendis sanctuary in Mounichia is known from IG II² 1283, l. 18.

60 It seems that from the late Hellenistic period on, when some statues became opera nobilia, depictions of specific statues in other media increased. For example, coin images in the Athenian New Style, Roman Imperial coin images that make reference to the Olympian Zeus or the relief from the theatre of Miletus showing the Apollo Kanachos (now Berlin, Antikensammlung inv. SK 1592).

61 Cf. Monaco (Reference Monaco1999–2000).

62 Following the conclusion of Gagliano (Reference Gagliano2014) 54; Hölscher (Reference Hölscher2017) 21. Later examples, such as the Mithras reliefs, have monumental dimensions. However, select rock-cut reliefs might also have functioned as cult images.

63 Cf. n.50.

64 Still fundamental for the analysis of copies is Willers (Reference Willers1967). On the copies of the Propylaios and the attribution of the original to Alkamenes more recently, Hallof et al. (Reference Hallof, Lehmann, Kansteiner, Kansteiner, Lehmenn, Seidensticker and Stemmer2007); Der Neue Overbeck II s.v. Alkamenes (Ἀλκαμένης) aus Athen 354–90, 374–78 no. 8. Contra: Francis (Reference Francis, Hartswick and Sturgeon1998); Gagliano (Reference Gagliano2014).

65 On the lost statue base SEG 48:262, see Gagliano (Reference Gagliano2014) 39.

66 Most recently, Der Neue Overbeck II s.v. Alkamenes (Ἀλκαμένης) aus Athen 354–90, 374–78 no. 8.

67 Willers’ set of basic features (Willers (Reference Willers1967) 39: ‘der allgemeine Eindruck, daß der Hermes des Alkamenes bärtig gewesen sei, zudem durch ein Lockentoupet über der Stirn und lange Schulterlocken gekennzeichnet’) is sufficient for the argument of this contribution, since it allows one to trace the core concept of the sculpture.

68 LIMC V s.v. Hermes 285–387, especially 295–96.

69 The Pergamon copy bears an inscription referring to Alkamenes and the location of the statue close to the gates. Despite propositions to untie the connection to the original developed for the Acropolis entrance by Alkamenes (summarized in Gagliano (Reference Gagliano2014) 34–37), I also follow Der Neue Overbeck II s.v. Alkamenes (Ἀλκαμένης) aus Athen 354–90.

70 Pala (Reference Pala2012) 50.

71 Literature on the Arkteia is vast. The written testimony is collected and clearly presented in Palaiokrassa (Reference Palaiokrassa1991) 30–31. Krateriskoi were also discovered in the sanctuary at Mounichia and published by Palaiokrassa.

72 The Peisistratid establishment of the cult for Artemis Brauronia and further Archaic finds are summarized in Camia (Reference Camia and Greco2010). The krateriskoi have also been found at other cult sites and are therefore less unambiguously indicative of Artemis cult; cf. Graml (Reference Graml, Graml, Doronzio and Capozzoli2019).

73 Described by Pausanias 5.26.6 as a xoanon: τὸ Ἀθήνῃσι τῆς Ἀπτέρου καλουμένης ξόανον.

74 Despinis (Reference Despinis1994).

75 Various statue types derived from the Alkamenian statue, but reproducing its main features, the three females, more freely, are attested from the Hellenistic period on. Besides the prismatic-shaped herm-type with three female heads, additional maidens can be attached either to the herm-shaped or the anthropomorphic type; cf. LIMC III s.v. Charis, Charites 191–203, 198 nos 28–34. These dependent types will not be discussed in this paper, but are summarized in LIMC VI s.v. Hekate 985–1018, 1004–05.

76 I thank Alaya Palamidis for pointing me to Catherine Keesling’s splendid article on Pausanias’ iconatrophy: Keesling (Reference Keesling2005). The term iconatrophy was coined by Jan Vansina for aetiologies of objects which had been developed after their production. Fundamental is Vansina (Reference Vansina1985).

77 This passage on the development of the image type for the Athenian context has been published in more detail in Graml (Reference Graml2020). Previous publications have already observed that Pausanias’ Hekate on the Acropolis has to be identified with Artemis, see Furtwängler (Reference Furtwängler1878); recently Gagliano (Reference Gagliano2014) 56.

78 Ἀλκαμένης δὲ ἐμοὶ δοκϵῖν πρῶτος ἀγάλματα Ἑκάτης τρία ἐποίησϵ προσϵχόμϵνα ἀλλήλοις, ἣν Ἀθηναῖοι καλοῦσιν Ἐπιπυργιδίαν· ἕστηκϵ δὲ παρὰ τῆς Ἀπτέρου Νίκης τὸν ναόν. Tr. Jones and Ormerod (Reference Jones and Ormerod1918).

79 Hes. Theog. 411–52.

80 Hymn. Hom. Dem. 2.22–27, 52.438–40; earliest analysis: Schömann (Reference Schömann and Schömann1856).

81 Compilation in West (Reference West1995) 188–214. The latest and most extensive compilation of textual sources, Serafini (Reference Serafini2015).

82 Examples, IG III App. 104, 105; SEG 30:326.

83 Examples, IG III App. 104, 105; SEG 30:326. PGM IV.1390–1495, 2006–2125, 2241–2358, etc. compiled in West (Reference West1995) 211–14.

84 Boedeker (Reference Boedeker1983) emphasizes the triple character apparent in her Hesiodic functions.

85 Hopfner (Reference Hopfner1942); Nouveau-Piobb (Reference Nouveau-Piobb1961); Lowe (Reference Lowe and Ronan1992); D’Este and Rankine (Reference DʼEste and Rankine2009); Carboni (Reference Carboni2015) 19–31; Serafini (Reference Serafini2015) 165–258.

86 Hadzisteliou Price (Reference Hadzisteliou Price1971) 68, for example, saw a functional triplication in the Hekateion.

87 The possibility of an erroneous attribution to Alkamenes has never been fully discussed, as Pausanias is the only author who wrote about the Epipyrgidia. Gagliano (Reference Gagliano2014) suggests a similar idea for the Hermes Propylaios mentioned by Pausanias 1.22.8: κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἔσοδον αὐτὴν ἤδη τὴν ἐς ἀκρόπολιν Ἑρμῆν ὃν Προπύλαιον ὀνομάζουσι καὶ Χάριτας Σωκράτην ποιῆσαι τὸν Σωφρονίσκου λέγουσιν. She also refers to the relation of Hekate and Artemis; Gagliano (Reference Gagliano2014) 56. Due to the inscribed references to Alkamenes on the herms from Pergamon and Ephesos (differing in stylistic traits), one Classical herm statue type can plausibly be attributed to Alkamenes; see Hallof et al. (Reference Hallof, Lehmann, Kansteiner, Kansteiner, Lehmenn, Seidensticker and Stemmer2007); Der Neue Overbeck II s.v. Alkamenes (Ἀλκαμένης) aus Athen 354–90, 374–78 no. 8. Francis (Reference Francis, Hartswick and Sturgeon1998) rejected the identification of the herm types from Pergamon or Ephesos to Alkamenes, and is followed by Gagliano (Reference Gagliano2014).

89 Kraus (Reference Kraus1960). This approach is strongly criticized by Clarke (Reference Clarke, Balch and Weissenrieder2012) 3–4.

90 ID 2448 = Archaeological Museum Delos, inv. no. A 3057: Ἀντιγένης Διοσκουρ[ί]/δου Σαλαμίνιος Ἑκά[τηι]/[Σω]τϵίρᾳ κατ’ ὄνϵι[ρον],/[Ἀ]γ̣α̣θῇ τύχῃ; SEG 50:593 from Kastania Pierias (Macedon): face A Ἀρτέμιδι/Ἑκάτῃ, face B Ἱππόστρατος/Παραμόνου, face C κατ’ ὄναρ; IG IV² 1 499 from Epidauros: Ἀρτέμιδι Ἑκά[τ]ηι/Ἐπηκόωι Φάβουλλος; ID 2381 = Archaeological Museum Delos, inv. no. E 4: Ἀρτέμιδι ΧA — — —/ἀγορανομούν[των Δη]/μοχάρους τοῦ Δ — — —/ου καὶ Χαρίου τοῦ [Χαρί]/ου Aἰθαλιδῶν, Δίκα[ιος]/Ἰάσονος Λαρισαῖος; ID 2374 = Archaeological Museum Delos, inv. no. 3006: [Ὀ]νησακὼ Ἀρτέμιδι κατὰ/πρόσταγμα v ἐφ’ ἱϵρέως/Πυλάδου τοῦ αἰσχρίω/νος Πϵριθοίδου; ID 2380 = Archaeological Museum Delos, inv. no. A 3055: [— — — — — — — —] ος Ἑρμο/[— — — — — — —]ιος ὑπὲρ̣/[αὑτοῦ καὶ τῆς γ]υναικὸς/[— — — — — — — —] κατὰ/[πρόσταγμ]α Φωσφό/[ρωι Ἀρτέ]µ̣ιδι.

91 On the Epipyrgidia, see Carboni (Reference Carboni, Angiolillo and Giuman2007). On Hekate, Rudloff (Reference Rudloff1999); Fauth (Reference Fauth2006); Lautwein (Reference Lautwein2009); Zografou (Reference Zografou2010); Carboni (Reference Carboni2015) 19–34.

92 Polinskaya (Reference Polinskaya2013) 99–100 summarizes the local aspects of cult.

93 Paus. 2.30.2; see n.78.

94 Paus. 2.30.2: θϵῶν δὲ Aἰγινῆται τιμῶσιν Ἑκάτην μάλιστα καὶ τϵλϵτὴν ἄγουσιν ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος Ἑκάτης, Ὀρφέα σφίσι τὸν Θρᾷκα καταστήσασθαι τὴν τϵλϵτὴν λέγοντϵς. τοῦ πϵριβόλου δὲ ἐντὸς ναός ἐστι, ξόανον δὲ ἔργον μύρωνος, ὁμοίως ἓν πρόσωπόν τϵ καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν σῶμα.

95 Fundamental historical approach: Scheer (Reference Scheer2000) 8–18. Non-specific ancient terminology versus modern definitions: Hölscher (Reference Hölscher2017) 15–18.

96 Paus. 5.19.1: τρϵῖς δὲ ἄνδρϵς Γηρυόνης ϵἰσὶν ἀλλήλοις προσϵχόμϵνοι.

97 Research on Alkamenes argues for a long creative period, starting already at the Temple of Zeus at Olympia in the second quarter of the fifth century BC and ending in the era of Thrasyboulos in 403 BC. On the possibility of mistaken literary sources, or the existence of two artists with the same name (Furtwängler (Reference Furtwängler1893) 122–23), see Der Neue Overbeck II s.v. Alkamenes (Ἀλκαμένης) aus Athen 354–90, 384 and 388.

98 Fullerton (Reference Fullerton1986) 673–74 argues for the erection of the statue in the context of the rebuilding of the Tower of Nike, about 430 BC; see below. But as Simon searches for antecedents of the statue in Archaic perirrhanteria, she ignores the fact that these sculptures do not serve as cult images. For the aesthetic concept, see below. Werth (Reference Werth2006) 46 proposes a date after the planning of the Mnesiklean Propylaia and before the rebuilding of the Tower of Nike. On the building programme: Lempidaki (Reference Lempidaki, Sioumpara and Psaroudakis2013). See below fig. 14.

99 The difficulty of this term is rooted in its inconsistent use in Graeco-Roman antiquity. Nevertheless, xoanon has become an archaeological terminus technicus for old-fashioned cult statues; Scheer (Reference Scheer2000) 19–21. See also Hölscher (Reference Hölscher2017) 230–38.

100 Simon (Reference Simon1985) 271–73. The archaistic style of the Epipyrgidia is, according to Simon, a ‘lingering sound’ of its antecedents. See more recently Hölscher (Reference Hölscher and Mylonopoulos2010) 111.

101 Karouzou (Reference Karouzou1972).

102 Willers (Reference Willers1975) 50–51 argues, due to the three-way connection, for the fundamental triplicity of Hekate and therefore of the Alkamenian statue. Yet the triple aspect is first emphasized by Charikleides (see below, n.131) several decades after the erection of the Alkamenian statue. For details, see Graml (Reference Graml2020) 114.

103 Serafini (Reference Serafini2012).

104 The analysis of Eckstein (Reference Eckstein1965) aims to identity a fragmented copy from the Athenian Agora as the oldest known copy. More detail and with a wider focus for comparisons are Werth (Reference Werth2006) and Graml (Reference Graml2020).

105 Cf. fig. 14. In the later copies and variations, the variety of attributes increases. The original torches are replaced by different items, such as phialai, jugs, knives, etc. Werth (Reference Werth2006) 147–218 focuses on the analysis of this spectrum.

106 Furtwängler (Reference Furtwängler1878) 193–94 is the earliest, but often ignored, example of a strict source criticism on the statue on the Acropolis and the sources which can plausibly be linked to it.

107 Recently Carboni (Reference Carboni2015); Serafini (Reference Serafini2015).

108 Hes. Theog. 411–52. I thank Andreas Schwab for elucidating the peculiar find circumstances and the neglected problems in research on the history of the Codex Mosquensis.

109 Hymn. Hom. Dem. 2.22–27; see n.80.

110 See Zografou (Reference Zografou2010) 50–51 on the informative value of Hesiod regarding the attestation of ‘official’ cult. Whitmarsh (Reference Whitmarsh2016) 29–30 states that neither source is a sacred script, but literature relying on the ‘bedrock of their [Greek] culture’.

111 TC 7729, Berlin Staatliche Antikensammlung, bearing the incised inscription IG I² 836, first published by Fränkel (Reference Fränkel1882). First published as IG I Supplement 422³: AΙΓΟΝAΝEΘEΚEΝΘEΚATEΙ with a drawing of the inscription; later revised as IG I² 836: Aἴγον ἀνέθϵκϵν θἐκάτϵι. The uncertain readings were left out.

112 For details, see Graml (Reference Graml2013).

113 Named Athenian red-figure vase depictions dating to the fifth century BC: Athenian red-figure kalyx krater, Toronto, Beazley no. 15540; Athenian red-figure kalyx krater, Ferrara, Beazley no. 213495; Athenian red-figure bell krater, New York, Beazley no. 214158; Athenian red-figure hydria, London, Beazley no. 215772.

114 IG I³ 250, face B, ll. 33–34: hϵκάτϵς ⋮ hιϵρϵίαι ⋮ hο͂ν ἂν τ/ϵ͂ι ⋮ hϵκάτϵι θύϵται ⋮

115 IG I³ 383, col. II. fr. IV ll. 124–26: — —[Ἑ]ρμο͂ καὶ Ἀρ/[τ]έμιδος/[Ἑ]κάτϵς. (429/8 BC).

116 See the altar inscription from the Delphinion in Miletos for the oldest reference to an independently worshipped goddess Hekate, Milet I 3, 129, ll. 5–7: […] ἀ/νέθϵσαν τἠ/κάτηι. Kraus (Reference Kraus1960) 53–54 sees Hekate’s ‘homeland’ in Caria. Berg (Reference Berg1974) assigns her a clearly Greek origin. Werth (Reference Werth2006) 27 argues against the equivalence of the Carian and the Athenian Hekate, and the theory of migration of the goddess suggested by Kraus.

117 An iconographic parallel for Hekate’s relation to Artemis, probably as a divine aspect given individual form, is depicted in the kalyx crater from Toronto (see n.113 and n.135), where Hekate is shown as a demonic winged figure next to Artemis witnessing the killing of Aktaion, probably incarnating the rage of Artemis.

118 IG I³ 406 ll. 4–7: [Δ(?)· hάλυσις χρυσϵ͂] hϵκάτϵ/[ς, σταθμὸν ἄγϵι] ⱵⱵ·καρχέ/[σιον ἀργυρο͂ν h]ϵρμο͂, στ/[αθμὸν ἄγϵι ΗΗ.

119 IG I³ 409, face B, ll. 13–14: [— — — ․․] Ἑκάτ[ης — —]/[— — — Ἑρ]μο͂ — — —].

120 SEG 21:541, col. II.I, ll. 6–14: ἕκτηι ἐπὶ δέ/κα, Κοροτρόφ/ωι, ἐν [Ἑ]κάτης/Ἐρχιᾶσι, χοῖ/ρος, ⱵⱵⱵ. vacat/Ἀρτέμιδι Ἑκ/άτϵι, Ἐρχιᾶ[σ]/ι[ν, αἴ]ξ, Δ.

121 SEG 33:147, face a.1, l. 7: [․․․․․․․․․20․․․․․․․․․]ϵαΙ Ἑκάτηι[․]

122 Hadzisteliou Price (Reference Hadzisteliou Price1978) 123.

123 SEG 21:780: [ὁ δϵῖνα στϵφανωθϵὶς χρυσ]ῶι στϵφά̣νωι ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ [Πρασιέων(?)]/[— — — — — ἀνέθηκϵ]ν̣ τϵῖ {Oikonomides reading: Ἑκ]ά̣τϵι} Ἀρτέμιδι.

124 The current location of the relief fragment is unknown. Inquiries have been made at the Ephorate for East Attica and the museum at Brauron. The author of the SEG commentary used a photograph, which does not prove Oikonomides’ reading.

125 A brief summary of the written sources (epigraphic and literary) serves as an introduction to LIMC VI s.v. Hekate 985–1018, 985–88.

126 Cf. n.81.

127 See attestations in West (Reference West1995) 188–214.

128 Most recently on the specifics of written evidence, see Willey (Reference Willey, Eidinow and Kindt2015); Gagné (Reference Gagné, Eidinow and Kindt2015); Taylor (Reference Taylor, Eidinow and Kindt2015).

129 On the problem of cultic and poetic epithets, see Parker (Reference Parker2003).

130 Ar. Vesp. 804: ὥσπϵρ Ἑκάταιον, πανταχοῦ πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν, with no specification of the appearance. As the play was presented in 422 BC, Aristophanes might have known the Epipyrgidia. But as the naming of the Alkamenian statue is more complex and Aristophanes does not make a comment on the appearance of a Hekateion (single- or three-figured), the passage should not be used in connection to the Alkamenian statue.

131 Charikleides in Ath. 7.126: δέσποιν’ Ἑκάτη τριοδῖτι, | τρίμορφϵ, τριπρόσωπϵ, | τρίγλαις κηλϵυμένα (third century BC?). A collection of Late Antique papyri is published in Theis (Reference Theis, Kiyanrad, Theis and Willer2018).

132 See, for example, Hsch. s.v. Kalliste referring to a statue for Hekate in the Kerameikos. The archaeological record of the so-called sanctuary of Hekate clearly attests a sanctuary for Artemis through the inscriptions found on site; Graml (Reference Graml2014; Reference Graml2020). The Artemis sanctuary at Mounicha is also related to Hekate in Late Antique sources; see Orph. Arg. 935 and Schol. Lycoph. (J. Tzetzes) 1080.

133 On the complexity of epithets and syncretistic epithets, see Pernot (Reference Pernot, Belayche, Brulé, Freyburger, Lehmann and Pernot2005).

134 Proposed precincts in the Agora: most recently, Carboni (Reference Carboni2015) 168–69 with literature. Also Lawton (Reference Lawton2017) 58–59, who describes the actual archaeological evidence in the Agora as meagre. In the Kerameikos: most recently, Carboni (Reference Carboni2015) 169–70 with literature. The examples listed by Carboni show no epigraphic evidence.

135 The idea of a Hekate related to and yet independent of Artemis seems to be depicted on the Athenian red-figure kalyx krater, Toronto, Beazley no. 15540 showing the killing of Aktaion. Artemis and a winged, demonic figure named Hekate are depicted supervising the dogs attacking Aktaion.

136 LSJ 653.

137 SEG 30:93, ll. 10–11: […] ἱϵρέως τῶν Χαρίτων καὶ τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος τῆς Ἐπιπ[υρ]/γιδίας […]; IG II² 5050: ἱϵρέως Χαρίτων/καὶ Ἀρτέμιδος/Ἐπιπυργιδίας/πυρφόρου. Lambert (Reference Lambert2007) proposed that the male priest of Artemis mentioned in IG II³ 1 531 (350–335 BC) refers to Artemis Epipyrgida (in later editions Brauronia); cf. n.37. If the inscription actually referred to Epipyrgidia, it would close the temporal gap between the secure attestations.

138 There are several inscriptions for shared cults, for example, IG II² 5047 for the Demos and the Charites, IG II² 5054 for Zeus Boulaios and Athena Boulaia or IG II² 5063 for Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira.

139 Paus. 2.30.2; see n.78.

140 A comparable surname, Epipyrgitis, is attested for the goddess Athena in Thracian Abdera, see Hsch. s.v. Epipyrgitis: ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ οὕτως ἐν Ἀβδήροις ἐκαλϵῖτο.

141 Parker (Reference Parker, Belayche, Brulé, Freyburger, Lehmann and Pernot2005) on the use of Hekate as an independent name but also as an epithet for Artemis.

142 Pirenne-Delforge (Reference Pirenne-Delforge2008) 270 points to Pausanias’ mention of an Artemis Phosphoros and the epigraphically attested cult for Artemis Ortheia at Messene (Paus. 4.31.10: πλϵῖστα δέ σφισι καὶ θέας μάλιστα ἀγάλματα ἄξια τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ παρέχϵται τὸ ἱϵρόν· … πόλις τϵ ἡ Θηβαίων καὶ Ἐπαμινώνδας ὁ Κλϵόμμιδος τύχη τϵ καὶ Ἄρτϵμις Φωσφόρος, τὰ μὲν δὴ τοῦ λίθου Δαμοφῶν αὐτοῖς ϵἰργάσατο). Statue fragments coming from that exact site prove that Artemis Ortheia was depicted as a torch-bearer (Phosphoros). Pirenne-Delforge (Reference Pirenne-Delforge2008) 287 therefore argues that Pausanias’ descriptions of statues and the cult epithets he gives should be treated with caution.

143 For comparison of the accumulated epithets, see the dedication to Athenaia Ergane Polias (IG II² 4318); Parker (Reference Parker2003) 181.

144 Furtwängler (Reference Furtwängler1878) 193–94 had already stated that the goddess of the treasury list (IG I³ 383), the goddess of the theatre of Dionysus (IG II² 5050) and that of Pausanias (2.30.2; see n.78) are the same figure in different times.

145 Petersen (Reference Petersen1881) 39–54.

146 The best example is the Athenian black-figure dinos made by Sophilos, London, British Museum inv. no 1971,1101.1, dated to approx. 580–570 BC, Beazley no. 350099. Named groups of three females are attested as the Moirai, the Charites and the Nymphs; see LIMC III s.v. Charis, Charites 191–203, 194 nos 14 and 200.

147 For example, Athens Acropolis Museum inv. nos 1341 α and β-γ, neo-Attic relief fragments of the ‘Charites of Socrates’; see LIMC III s.v. Charis, Charites 191–203, 196–97 nos 25 d and g.

148 Three Charites dancing: for example, Athens Acropolis Museum inv. no. 2556, dated to the fourth century BC, unnamed depiction, most likely the three Charites accompanying the aegis-bearing Athena; see LIMC III s.v. Charis, Charites 191–203, 194 no. 11; LIMC III s.v. Charis, Charites 191–203, 194–98: three Charites, standing; three Charites walking in procession; three Charites dancing. Only very few depictions are explicitly named.

149 Pausanias 9.38.1 refers to aniconic cult images of the Charites at Orchomenos, where three stones were venerated as cult images and man-made depictions were erected only later on: Ὀρχομϵνίοις δὲ πϵποίηται καὶ Διονύσου, τὸ δὲ ἀρχαιότατον Χαρίτων ἐστὶν ἱϵρόν. τὰς μὲν δὴ πέτρας σέβουσί τϵ μάλιστα καὶ τῷ Ἐτϵοκλϵῖ αὐτὰς πϵσϵῖν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ φασιν· τὰ δὲ ἀγάλματα τὰ σὺν κόσμῳ πϵποιημένα ἀνϵτέθη μὲν ἐπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, λίθου δέ ἐστι καὶ ταῦτα.

150 Harrison rightly states that only from Hellenistic times on were the Charites unambiguously depicted with the type of the three nude females sculpted in the round; LIMC III s.v. Charis, Charites 191–203.

151 IG I³ 234, ll. 13–14: […] [— — — — — — Χά]/[ρ]ισιν ∶ γαλαθϵ[ν— — — — — — —] (480–460 BC); Furtwängler (Reference Furtwängler1878) 183.

152 Rathgeber (Reference Rathgeber1841) 63: ‘da prima in qual modo Alcamene abbia aggruppate le single figure, e poi se le abbia collocate intorno ad una colonna’. On p. 65, he reviews older interpretations, for example, the assumption of a polos. Escher (Reference Escher1899) 2166 assumes that the image type of three females dancing around a pillar originated in Kyzikos. He sees this example as a predecessor for the three-figured statue on the Acropolis.

153 Simon (Reference Simon1998) 140–41 argues for Archaic perirrhanteria as predecessors.

154 Kraus (Reference Kraus1960) 151 suggests that the column was to be used as a base.

155 Kraus (Reference Kraus1960) 107–08 links Dionysiac mask pillars with the passages in Ov. Fast. 1.141–42 ora uides Hecates in tres uertentia partes, | seruet ut in ternas compita secta uias, and in Anonymous Antatticista s.v. Korokosmia κυρίως μέν ἐστι τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν τριοδίων πρόσωπα ξύλινα, ἃ δὴ οἱ Ἀττικοὶ κόρας καλοῦσι, with the statuary evidence. Werth (Reference Werth2006) 61 rightly states that the given sources do not prove the existence of a mask pillar for Hekate.

156 Charikleides fr. 1; see n.131. For a fifth-century BC connection to three-way roads, see Soph. fr. 535: ΧΟ. Ἥλιϵ δέσποτα καὶ πῦρ ἱϵρόν, τῆς ϵἰνοδίας Ἑκάτης ἔγχος, τὸ δι’ Οὐλύμπου προπολοῦσα φέρϵι καὶ γῆς ἀνιοῦσ’ ἱϵρὰς τριόδους.

157 Simon (Reference Simon1985) 274: ‘Bestimmte Hekateia scheinen also Idol und Opferstätte in einem gewesen zu sein’. She compares the Hekateia with the aniconic cult statue for Apollo Aguieus.

158 Weißl (Reference Weißl1998) 169.

159 Kron (Reference Kron, Froning, Hölscher and Mielsch1992); Gaifman (Reference Gaifman2012) 181–241; Hölscher (Reference Hölscher2017) 240–65. The objects function as markers of the deity or the deity’s presence, imagined in anthropomorphic shape.

160 Rhomaios (Reference Rhomaios1911), who sees the stelai as evidence for the primitiveness of Arcadia.

161 A third-century BC stele from Tegea with the nominative denomination Artemis (Archaeological Museum of Tegea, inv. no 1437); Gaifman (Reference Gaifman2012) 217–18. Pausanias 2.9.6 even mentions a column-shaped Artemis in Sikyon: μϵτὰ δὲ <τὸ> Ἀράτου ἡρῷον ἔστι μὲν Ποσϵιδῶνι Ἰσθμίῳ βωμός, ἔστι δὲ Ζϵὺς Mϵιλίχιος καὶ Ἄρτϵμις ὀνομαζομένη Πατρῴα, σὺν τέχνῃ πϵποιημένα οὐδϵμιᾷ· πυραμίδι δὲ ὁ Mϵιλίχιος, ἡ δὲ κίονί ἐστιν ϵἰκασμένη.

162 Gaifman (Reference Gaifman2012) 243–69. The difficulty of the Athenian depictions is that cult practice is not shown on stelai marking the divine presence. Only a Lucanian vase painting from southern Italy (volute krater, National Archaeological Museum Taranto, inv. no. I.G. 8236) refers to rituals in the context of the Karneia, but the stele is not integrated into ritual actions; Gaifman (Reference Gaifman2012) 254–57. The depiction on an Apulian Panathenaic amphora (British Museum London, inv. no. F 331) shows a libation to Zeus on an altar in front of a pillar; Gaifman (Reference Gaifman2012) 262–67.

163 The type is attested for Athens by a statue base in the Kerameikos; cf. Graml (Reference Graml2020) 114–15.

164 An independently worshipped Hekate is crucial for the argument of Serafini (Reference Serafini2015) 307–22. Cf. Beschi (Reference Beschi1967–1968) 536 on the Hellenistic invention of the Hekateion type with regard to the neighbouring Charites. However, he does not pay attention to whether the names are used as epithets.

165 Furtwängler (Reference Furtwängler1878) 193–95.

166 See n.131.

167 On the reproduction of images as ‘situationsgebunden[…]’, see Reinhardt (Reference Reinhardt2019) 16, 131. The diversity among the three-figured images proves the adaptability of the Alkamenian concept.

168 On Athena Nike, see Paus. 5.26.6; see also n.73. On Artemis Brauronia: Paus. 1.23.7: τὸ ἀρχαῖον ξόανόν ἐστιν ἐν Bραυρῶνι, Ἄρτϵμις ὡς λέγουσιν ἡ Tαυρική. Pausanias states that the wooden image was kept at Brauron. Only in the fourth century BC was a statue made by Praxiteles erected on the Acropolis.

169 Cf. n.99.

170 The statue base with the inscription IG I³ 506 is attached to one of the columns on the east side of the Propylaia. Two small finds are dated prior to the building ca. 480–470 BC; cf. commentary on Attic inscriptions online <https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGI3/506>. See also Meyer (Reference Meyer2017) 23–28 n.41.

171 Palagia (Reference Palagia, Avramidou and Demetriou2014) 238, based on Luigi Beschi, assumes a precinct for the Charites next to the Tower of Nike close to the Mycenaean wall, where the Charites of Socrates functioned as a cult image.

172 Cf. the summary in Werth (Reference Werth2006) 45, fig. 1.

173 I use this term in homage to Ernst Gombrich and his monumental work The Story of Art (1950). All interpretations of artefacts aim to construct the most plausible story to explain every perceivable aspect and to provide their embedding into their respective ‘Lebenswelt’.

174 Summarized in Gagliano (Reference Gagliano2014).

175 Cf. Furtwängler (Reference Furtwängler1878) 187.

176 For a plan of the purgos with several proposed locations based on previous scholarship, see Werth (Reference Werth2006) 45.

177 Palagia (Reference Palagia1998) 8. Der Neue Overbeck II s.v. Alkamenes (Ἀλκαμένης) aus Athen 354–90, 389.

178 Fullerton (Reference Fullerton1986) 673–74; Werth (Reference Werth2006) 46–57; Kraus (Reference Kraus1960) 95–96, who therefore deduces an Archaic cult for Hekate. Palagia (Reference Palagia and Palagia2009) emphasizes the Peloponnesian War and argues that the stylistic traits might by indicators of a conservative climate at Athens.

179 Lempidaki (Reference Lempidaki, Sioumpara and Psaroudakis2013) 384–85; Camia (Reference Camia and Greco2010) refers to the Peisistradeian dating for the Brauronion deduced from archaeological finds and also refers to the Perikleian influence on the area, as the north wall is oriented in parallel to the Mnesikleian Propylaia.

180 Willers (Reference Willers1975) 33.

181 Already Furtwängler (Reference Furtwängler1878) 187 and Welter (Reference Welter1923) 200 suggested that cult activity might have been hindered for many years during the erection of the Propylaia. The long construction phase might have been caused by the general remodelling of the Acropolis. This began with the Parthenon and was only later finished with the Propylaia and the Nike temple; Shear (Reference Shear1999) 124–25.

182 Cf. Hölscher (Reference Hölscher2017) 189–91 on the Propylaios, 196–97 on the Alkamenian statue.

References

Berg, W. (1974) ʻHekate: Greek or “Anatolian”?ʼ, Numen 21.2, 128–40Google Scholar
Beschi, L. (1967–1968) ʻContributi di topografia atenieseʼ, ASAA 45–46, 511–36Google Scholar
Boedeker, D. (1983) ʻHekate: a transfunctional goddess in the Theogony?ʼ, TAPhA 113, 7993 Google Scholar
Camia, F. (2010) ʻIl santuario di Artemide Brauroniaʼ, in Greco, E. (ed.), Topografia di Atene. Sviluppo urbano e monumenti dale origini al III secolo d. C. I. Acropoli, Areopago, tra Acropoli e Pnice (Paestum) 9293 Google Scholar
Carboni, R. (2007) ʻEcate Epipyrgidia, la custode dei Propilei. Questioni iconografiche e problematiche topograficheʼ, in Angiolillo, S. and Giuman, M. (eds), Il vasaio e le sue storie. Giornata di studi sulla ceramica attica in onore di Mario Torelli per i suoi settanta anni (Cagliari) 4760 Google Scholar
Carboni, R. (2015) Dea in limine. Culto, immagine e sincretismi di Ecate nel mondo greco e microasiatico (Rahden and Westfalen)Google Scholar
Clarke, J.R. (2012) ʻRepresentations of worship at Rome, Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Ostia in the Imperial period: a model of production and consumptionʼ, in Balch, D.L. and Weissenrieder, A. (eds), Contested Spaces: Houses and Temples in Roman Antiquity and the New Testament (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 285) (Tübingen) 3–20Google Scholar
Despinis, G. (1994) ʻNeues zu einem alten Fundʼ, MDMAI(A) 109, 173–98Google Scholar
DʼEste, S. and Rankine, D. (2009) Hekate Liminal Rites: A Study of the Rituals, Magic and Symbols of the Torch-Bearing Triple Goddess of the Crossroads (London)Google Scholar
Dinsmoor, W.B. (1980) The Propylaia of the Athenian Akropolis I: The Predecessors (Princeton)Google Scholar
Dinsmoor, W.B. (2004) The Propylaia to the Athenian Akropolis II: The Classical Building (Princeton)Google Scholar
Doronzio, A. (2017) Athen im 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Räume und Funde der frühen Polis (Berlin)Google Scholar
Eckstein, F. (1965) ‘Das Hekateion in der British School zu Athen’, Antike Plastik 4, 2736 Google Scholar
Eiteljorg, H. (1995) The Entrance to the Athenian Acropolis before Mnesicles (Dubuque)Google Scholar
Eiteljorg, H. (2011) ʻRevisiting the pre-Mnesiklean entrance to the Athenian Acropolisʼ, AJA 115, 641–4510.3764/aja.115.4.0641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escher, B.J. (1899) ‘Charites, Charis’, in RE 3.2 (Stuttgart) 2150–67Google Scholar
Fauth, W. (2006) Hekate Polymorphos – Wesensvarianten einer antiken Gottheit. Zwischen frühgriechischer Theogonie und spätantikem Synkretismus (Schriftenreihe altsprachliche Forschungsergebnisse 4) (Hamburg)Google Scholar
Foley, E. and Stroud, R.S. (2019) ‘A reappraisal of the Athena Promachos accounts from the Acropolis (IG I3 435)’, Hesperia 88.1, 87153 10.2972/hesperia.88.1.0087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, J. (1998) ʻRe-writing attributions: Alkamenes and the Hermes Propylaiosʼ in Hartswick, K.J. and Sturgeon, M.C. (eds), ΣTEΦANΟΣ: Studies in Honor of Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway (Philadelphia) 6168 Google Scholar
Fränkel, M. (1882) ʻArchaische Thonbilder sitzender Frauenʼ, Archäologische Zeitung 40, 265–68Google Scholar
Fullerton, M.D. (1986) ʻThe location and archaism of the Hekate Epipyrgidiaʼ, AA 1986, 669–75Google Scholar
Furtwängler, A. (1878) ʻDie Chariten der Akropolisʼ, MDAI(A) 3, 181202 Google Scholar
Furtwängler, A. (1893) Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik. Kunstgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Leipzig)Google Scholar
Gagliano, E. (2014) ʻHermes Propylaios (e le Charites) sullʼAcropoli di Ateneʼ, ASAA 92, 3368 Google Scholar
Gagné, R. (2015) ʻLiterary evidence-poetryʼ, in Eidinow, E. and Kindt, J. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion (Oxford) 8396 Google Scholar
Gaifman, M. (2012) Aniconism in Greek Antiquity (Oxford Studies in Ancient Culture and Representation 18) (Oxford)10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645787.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gombrich, E.H. (1950) The Story of Art (London)Google Scholar
Graml, C. (2013) ʻIG I² 836 – Hekate als ein Produkt des 19. Jahrhunderts?ʼ, JBerlM 55, 1317 Google Scholar
Graml, C. (2014) ʻEine neue Ehreninschrift der Thiasotai der Artemis Ἀρίστη καὶ Καλλίστη aus dem Athener Kerameikosʼ, ZPE 190, 116–26Google Scholar
Graml, C. (2019) ʻWorshipping women, worshipping war: (how) did the Persian Wars change the cultic veneration of Artemis in Athens?ʼ, in Graml, C., Doronzio, A. and Capozzoli, V. (eds), Rethinking Athens before the Persian Wars: Proceedings of the International Workshop at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (Munich, 23rd–24th February 2017) (Münchner Studien zur Alten Welt 17) (Munich) 277–95Google Scholar
Graml, C. (2020) ʻCreating the three-figured Hekate – from image to imaginationʼ, in Museum of Strumica (ed.), Acta Musei Tiberopolitani 3 (Strumica) 193–219Google Scholar
Greco, E. (2010) (ed.), Topografia di Atene. Sviluppo urbano e monumenti dalle origini al III secolo d. C. I. Acropoli, Areopago, tra Acropoli e Pnice (Paestum)Google Scholar
Hadzisteliou Price, T. (1971) ʻDouble and multiple representations in Greek art and religious thoughtʼ, JHS 91, 4869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadzisteliou Price, T. (1978) Kourotrophos: Cults and Representations of the Greek Nursing Deities (Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 8) (Leiden)10.1163/9789004672420_025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallof, K., Lehmann, L. and Kansteiner, S. (2007) ʻ7. Alkamenes aus Athen (?). 7.1 Athen, Akropolis: Herme des Hermes Propylaiosʼ, in Kansteiner, S., Lehmenn, L., Seidensticker, B. and Stemmer, K. (eds), Text und Skulptur: Berühmte Bildhauer und Bronzegießer der Antike in Wort und Bild (Berlin and New York) 5356 Google Scholar
Harrison, E.B. (1986) ʻCharis, Charites’, in LIMC III (Zürich and Munich) 191–203Google Scholar
Himmelmann-Wildschütz, N. (1957) Theoleptos (Marburg)Google Scholar
Hoepfner, W. (1997) ʻPropyläen und Nike-Tempelʼ, in Hoepfner, W. (ed.), Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis: Internationales Symposion vom 7. bis 9. Juli 1995 in Berlin (Berlin) 160–77Google Scholar
Hölscher, F. (2010) ʻGods and statues: an approach to archaistic images in the fifth century BCEʼ, in Mylonopoulos, J. (ed.), Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome (Leiden and Boston) 105–2010.1163/9789047441656_006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hölscher, F. (2017) Die Macht der Gottheit im Bild. Archäologische Studien zur griechischen Götterstatue (Heidelberg)Google Scholar
Hopfner, T. (1942) ʻHekate-Selene-Artemis und Verwandte in den griechisch-ägyptischen Zauberpapyri und auf den Fluchtafelnʼ, ArchOrient, 167200 Google Scholar
Hurwit, J.M. (2004) The Acropolis in the Age of Pericles (Cambridge)Google Scholar
Iakovidis, S.E. (2006) The Mycenaean Acropolis of Athens (Athens)Google Scholar
Jahn, O. and Michaelis, A. (1901) Arx Athenarum a Pausania descripta. Tabulae arcem Athenarum illustrantes (3rd edition) (Bonn)Google Scholar
Jones, W.H.S. and Ormerod, H.A. (trs) (1918) Pausanias: Description of Greece (London)Google Scholar
Karouzou, S. (1972) ʻAn underworld scene on a black-figured lekythosʼ, JHS 92, 6473 10.2307/629973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keesling, C.M. (2005) ʻMisunderstood gestures: iconatrophy and the reception of Greek sculpture in the Roman Imperial periodʼ, ClAnt 24.1, 4179 Google Scholar
Kokkou, A. (2009) ῾Η µέριµνα γιὰ τὶς ἀρχαιότητϵς στὴν ῾Ελλάδα καὶ τὰ πρῶτα µουσϵῖα 2 (Athens)Google Scholar
Köppen, P. von (1823) Die dreygestaltige Hekate und ihre Rolle in den Mysterien (Vienna)Google Scholar
Kraus, T. (1960) Hekate. Studien zu Wesen und Bild der Göttin in Kleinasien und Griechenland (Heidelberger kunstgeschichtliche Abhandlungen N. F. 5) (Heidelberg)Google Scholar
Kron, U. (1992) ‘Heilige Steine’, in Froning, H., Hölscher, T. and Mielsch, H. (eds), Kotinos. Festschrift für Erika Simon (Mainz) 5670 Google Scholar
Krumeich, R. (1997) Bildnisse griechischer Herrscher und Staatsmänner im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Munich)Google Scholar
Krumeich, R. (2010) ‘Vor klassischem Hintergrund. Zum Phänomen der Wiederverwendung älterer Statuen auf der Athener Akropolis als Ehrenstatuen für Römer’, in Krumeich, R. and Witschel, C. (eds), Die Akropolis von Athen im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Wiesbaden) 329–9810.29091/9783954905904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krumeich, R. and Witschel, C. (2010) ‘Die Akropolis als zentrales Heiligtum und Ort athenischer Identitätsbildung’, in Krumeich, R. and Witschel, C. (eds), Die Akropolis von Athen im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Wiesbaden) 153 10.29091/9783954905904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, S. (2004) ʻAthenian state laws and decrees 352/1–322/1: I. Decrees honouring Atheniansʼ, ZPE 150, 85120 Google Scholar
Lambert, S. (2007) ʻAthenian state laws and decrees, 352/1–322/1: IV Treaties and other textsʼ, ZPE 161, 67100 Google Scholar
Lautwein, T. (2009) Hekate. Die dunkle Göttin. Geschichte und Gegenwart (Rudolstadt)Google Scholar
Lawton, C. (2017) Votive Reliefs (The Athenian Agora 38) (Princeton)Google Scholar
Lehmann, L. and Kansteiner, S. (2007) ʻ4. Sokrates aus Theben, 4.1 Athen, Akropolis: Relief der drei Chariten’, in Kansteiner, S., Lehmenn, L., Seidensticker, B. and Stemmer, K. (eds), Text und Skulptur: Berühmte Bildhauer und Bronzegießer der Antike in Wort und Bild (Berlin and New York) 1519 Google Scholar
Lehmann, L. and Raeder, J. (2007) ʻ6. Phidias aus Athen, 6.2. Athen, Akropolis, Parthenon: Kolossalstatue der Athena Parthenos’, in Kansteiner, S., Lehmenn, L., Seidensticker, B. and Stemmer, K. (eds), Text und Skulptur: Berühmte Bildhauer und Bronzegießer der Antike in Wort und Bild (Berlin and New York) 3346 Google Scholar
Lempidaki, E. (2013) ʻΗ λατρϵία της Aθηνάς Νίκης στην Aκρόπολη των Aθηνών – Aπό την Aθηνά την Νίκη στη Νίκη Άπτϵροʼ, in Sioumpara, E.P. and Psaroudakis, K. (eds), ΘEMEΛΙΟΝ. 24 μϵλέτϵς για τον Δάσκαλο ΠETΡΟ ΘEMEΛH από τους μαθητές και τους συνϵργάτϵς του (Athens) 367–93Google Scholar
Lowe, J.E. (1992) ʻMagical Hekateʼ, in Ronan, S. (ed.), The Goddess Hekate: Studies in Ancient Pagan and Christian Religion and Philosophy 1 (Hastings) 11–15Google Scholar
Mark, I.S. (1993) The Sanctuary of Athena Nike in Athens: Architectural Stages and Chronology (Hesperia Supplement 26) (Princeton)10.2307/1354000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, M. (2017) Athena, Göttin von Athen: Kult und Mythos auf der Akropolis bis in klassische Zeit (Vienna)Google Scholar
Monaco, M.C. (1999–2000) ‘Atene, Museo dell’Acropoli 1341+2594: ancora sui rilievi con le Charites di Sokrates’, ArchClass 51, 85104 Google Scholar
Monaco, M.C. (2010) ʻI Propilei e la Pinacotecaʼ, in Greco, E. (ed.), Topografia di Atene. Sviluppo urbano e monumenti dale origini al III secolo d. C. I. Acropoli, Areopago, tra Acropoli e Pnice (Paestum) 8084 Google Scholar
Mountjoy, P.A. (1995) Mycenaean Athens (Jonsered)Google Scholar
Mylonopoulos, J. (2010) ʻDivine images versus cult images: an endless story about theories, methods, and terminologiesʼ, in Mylonopoulos, J. (ed.), Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome (Leiden and Boston) 119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nawracala, S. (2019) Repräsentation und Kultausübung an Toren und Eingängen der ägäischen Bronzezeit (Hamburg)Google Scholar
Nouveau-Piobb, M.F. (1961) Hécate. La déesse magique des âmes (Paris)Google Scholar
Paga, J. (2017) ‘Contested space at the entrance to the Athenian Acropolis’, JSAH 76, 154–74Google Scholar
Pala, E. (2012) Acropoli di Atene. Un microcosmo della produzione e distribuzione della ceramica attica (Rome)Google Scholar
Palagia, O. (1989–1990) ‘A new relief of the Graces and the Charites of Socrates’, Sacris Erudiri 31, 347–5610.1484/J.SE.2.303743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palagia, O. (1998) The Pediments of the Parthenon (Leiden and Boston)Google Scholar
Palagia, O. (2009) ʻArchaism and the quest of immortality in Attic sculpture during the Peloponnesian Warʼ, in Palagia, O. (ed.), Art in Athens during the Peloponnesian War (Cambridge) 2451 Google Scholar
Palagia, O. (2013) ‘Not from the spoils of Marathon: Pheidias’ bronze Athena on the Acropolis’, in Buraselis, K. and Koulakiotis, E. (eds), Marathon: The Day After. Symposium Proceedings, Delphi 2–4 July, 2010 (Athens) 117–37Google Scholar
Palagia, O. (2014) ‘Three Graces at the Panathenaia’, in Avramidou, A. and Demetriou, D. (eds), Approaching the Ancient Artifact: Representation, Narrative and Function. A Festschrift in Honor of Alan Shapiro (Berlin and Boston) 233–42Google Scholar
Palaiokrassa, L. (1991) Tο Ιϵρό της Aρτέμιδος Mουνιχίας (Athens)Google Scholar
Papadimitriou, N. (2017) ʻΣυνοίκησις in Mycenaean times? The political and cultural geography of Attica in the second millennium BCEʼ, CHS Research Bulletin 5.2 <http://www.chs-fellows.org/2017/09/11/sunoikisis-mycenaean/>>Google Scholar
Parker, R. (2003) ʻThe problem of the Greek cult epithetsʼ, OAth 28, 173–83Google Scholar
Parker, R. (2005) ʻArtémis Ilithye et autres: le problème du nom divin utilisé comme épiclèseʼ, in Belayche, N., Brulé, P., Freyburger, G., Lehmann, Y. and. Pernot, L. (eds), Nommer les dieux. Théonymes, épithètes, épiclèses dans l’antiquité (Recherches sur les rhétoriques religieuses 5) (Turnhout) 219–2610.1484/M.RRR-EB.4.00356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pernot, L. (2005) ʻLe lieu du nom (τὀπος ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος) dans la rhétorique religieuse des Grecsʼ, in Belayche, N., Brulé, P., Freyburger, G., Lehmann, Y. and. Pernot, L. (eds), Nommer les dieux. Théonymes, épithètes, épiclèses dans l’antiquité (Recherches sur les rhétoriques religieuses 5) (Turnhout) 2939 10.1484/M.RRR-EB.4.00339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, E. (1880) ʻDie dreigestaltige Hekateʼ, Archäologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Österreich-Ungarn, 140–74Google Scholar
Petersen, E. (1881) ʻDie dreigestaltige Hekateʼ, Archäologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Österreich-Ungarn, 184 Google Scholar
Petersen, E. (1889) ʻHera von Alkamenesʼ, RhM 4, 6574 Google Scholar
Pirenne-Delforge, V. (2008) Retour à la source. Pausanias et la religion grecque (Kernos Supplément 20) (Liège)10.4000/books.pulg.1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinskaya, I. (2013) A Local History of Greek Polytheism: Gods, People, and the Land of Aigina, 800–400 BCE (Leiden)10.1163/9789004262089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raeder, J. and Lehmann, L. (2014) Der Neue Overbeck II. Klassik: Bildhauer und Maler des 5. Jhs. v. Chr. s.v. Alkamenes (Ἀλκαμένης) aus Athen (Berlin and Boston) 354–90Google Scholar
Rathgeber, G. (1841) ʻHekate Epipyrgidia d’Alcamene sull’Acropoli d’Ateneʼ, Annali dell’ instituto di corrispondenza archeologica 12, 4582 Google Scholar
Reinhardt, A. (2019) Reproduktion und Bild. Zu Wiederholung und Vielfalt von Reliefs in römischer Zeit (MAR 41) (Wiesbaden)10.29091/9783954906888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhomaios, K. (1911) ʻArkadikoi hermaiʼ, AEph, 149–59Google Scholar
Rudloff, R. von (1999) Hekate in Ancient Greek Religion (Victoria)Google Scholar
Sarian, H. (1992) ʻHekateʼ, in LIMC VI (Zürich and Munich) 985–1018Google Scholar
Scheer, T. (2000) Die Gottheit und ihr Bild. Untersuchungen zur Funktion griechischer Kultbilder in Religion und Politik (Munich)Google Scholar
Schömann, G.F. (1856) ʻDe Hekate Hesiodeaʼ, in Schömann, G.F. (ed.), Opuscula Academica I (Berlin) 215–49Google Scholar
Serafini, N. (2012) ʻUna lekythos attica a figure nere: una nuova letturaʼ, Rivista di antichità 21.1–2, 177–85Google Scholar
Serafini, N. (2015) La dea Ecate nell’antica Grecia. Una protettrice dalla quale proteggersi (Ariccia)Google Scholar
Shear, I.M. (1999) ʻThe western approach to the Athenian Akropolisʼ, JHS 119, 86127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebert, G. (1990) ʻHermesʼ, in LIMC V (Zürich and Munich) 285–387Google Scholar
Simon, E. (1985) ʻHekate in Athenʼ, MDAI(A) 100, 271–84Google Scholar
Simon, E. (1998) Die Götter der Griechen (Munich)Google Scholar
Sioumpara, E.P. (2018) ‘Set in stone at the Mycenaean Acropolis of Athens: Documentation with 3D integrated methodologies’, in Brysbaert, A., Klinkenberg, V., Gutiérrez-Garcia M, A.. and Vikatou, I. (eds), Constructing Monuments, Perceiving Monumentality and the Economics of Building: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to the Built Environment (Leiden) 141–67Google Scholar
Sioumpara, E.P. (2019) ‘Managing the debris: spoliation of architecture and dedications on the Athenian Acropolis after the Persian destruction’, in Palagia, O. and Sioumpara, E.P. (eds), From Hippias to Kallias: Greek Art in Athens and Beyond, 527–449 BC (Athens) 3151 Google Scholar
Sioumpara, E.P. and Papazarkadas, N. (2020) ‘Νέο θραύσμα της στήλης της Χαλκοθήκης IG II² 120+1465’, HOROS 26–31, 2014–19, 63–75Google Scholar
Tanoulas, T. (1997) Tα προπύλαια τής Aθηναϊκής Aκρόπολης κατά τον Mϵσαίωνα (Athens)Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (2015) ʻEpigraphic evidenceʼ, in Eidinow, E. and Kindt, J. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion (Oxford) 97111 Google Scholar
Theis, C. (2018) ʻHekate Triformis auf Gemmenʼ, in Kiyanrad, S., Theis, C. and Willer, L. (eds), Bild und Schrift auf ʻmagischenʼ Artefakten (Berlin, Boston) 165–8010.1515/9783110604337-007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usener, H. (1903) ʻDreiheitʼ, RhM 1903, 161208 Google Scholar
Vansina, J. (1985) Oral Tradition as History (Oxford)Google Scholar
Weißl, M. (1998) Torgottheiten. Studien zum sakralen und magischen Schutz von griechischen Stadt- und Burgtoren unter Einbeziehung der benachbarten Kulturen (last update 2012) <https://www.academia.edu/4905465/Torgottheiten>>Google Scholar
Welter, G. (1923) ʻVom Nikepyrgosʼ, MDAI(A) 48, 190201 Google Scholar
Werth, N. (2006) Hekate. Untersuchungen zur dreigestaltigen Göttin (Antiquitates 37) (Hamburg)Google Scholar
West, D.R. (1995) Some Cults of Greek Goddesses and Female Daemons of Oriental Origin: [especially in relation to the mythology of goddesses and daemons in the semitic world] (Alter Orient und Altes Testament) (Kevelaer)Google Scholar
Willers, D. (1967) ‘Zum Hermes Propylaios des Alkamenes’, MDAI(A) 82, 37109 Google Scholar
Willers, D. (1975) Zu den Anfängen der archaistischen Plastik in Griechenland (Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung Beiheft 4) (Berlin)Google Scholar
Willey, H. (2015) ʻLiterary evidence-proseʼ, in Eidinow, E. and Kindt, J. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion (Oxford) 6782 Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (2016) Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World (London)Google Scholar
Wright, J.C. (1994) ʻThe Mycenaean entrance system at the west end of the Akropolis of Athensʼ, Hesperia 63, 323–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zografou, A. (2010) Chemins d’Hécate. Portes, routes, carrefours et autres figures de l’entre-deux (Kernos Supplément 24) (Liège)10.4000/books.pulg.1641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 2. The Pre-Mnesiklean Propylon with the slightly rotated entrance axis viewed from southwest (plaster model © Acropolis Museum, 2013, photo: Socratis Mavromatis).

Figure 1

Fig. 3. The entrance building of Mnesikles viewed from the southwest (plaster model © Acropolis Museum, 2013, photo: Socratis Mavromatis).

Figure 2

Fig. 11. Schematic drawing of the Alkamenian Hermes Propylaios with its core concept combining aniconic and anthropomorphic traits (C. Graml).

Figure 3

Fig. 13. Athenian tetradrachm of the New Style Silver coinage, by Tryphon and Polycharmos 91/90 BC with a depiction of the three-figured statue holding torches (Staatliche Münzsammlung München, photo: Nicolai Kästner).

Figure 4

Fig. 14. Schematic drawing of the Alkamenian statue group of Artemis and the Charites with its core concept of combining aniconic and anthropomorphic traits (C. Graml).

Figure 5

Fig. 15. Timeline of the epigraphical and literary sources with their temporal relation to the Alkamenian image. IG II3 1 531 has not been included due to its ambiguous relation to Artemis Epipyrgidia (C. Graml).

Figure 6

Fig. 16. Timeline of the iconographic evidence relating to the cult concepts of Artemis, Hermes and the Charites with regard to the likely spatial setting of the cults (C. Graml).

Figure 7

Fig. 17. Schematic drawing of the Mnesiklean Propylaia with proposed location of the Alkamenian statues (C. Graml).

Supplementary material: Image

Graml supplementary material

Graml supplementary material 1

Download Graml supplementary material(Image)
Image 1.3 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Graml supplementary material

Graml supplementary material 2

Download Graml supplementary material(Image)
Image 39 MB