Statues in their Spaces
Statues in their Spaces
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter presents a ‘grammar of space’ by focusing on various sites where communities of the Hellenistic period set up honorific portraits. It begins with an overview of space before turning to a discussion of how honorific statues were involved — and involved their viewers — in the construction of civic space. In this sense, ‘space’ can be public space, sacred space, or private space, in any Hellenistic city. The chapter considers how space affects social meaning, and how the meaning is read and interpreted by those who live it. More precisely, it explores how exactly the meaning is produced by the location where an honorific statue was set up. To illustrate the ‘grammar’ and to understand the placement of statues as a dynamic, interrelated set of meaningful possibilities, several test cases — Priene, Pergamon, Athens, and the Asklepieion near Epidauros — are described.
Lorsqu’on essaie d’étudier des espaces mis à jour par la fouille, force est de constater que ceci ne se fait pas sans une certaine difficulté.
When one tries to study the spaces revealed by excavation, there are no two ways about it: the operation only occurs with no small difficulty.
Honorific statues do not exist in the abstract, but took up space, somewhere. After the ‘grammar’ offered in Part I, the present chapter tries to establish a ‘grammar of space’, by listing and exemplifying the various sites where Hellenistic communities set up honorific portraits. I also examine several test cases—Priene, Pergamon, Athens, and the Asklepieion near Epidauros—to illustrate the ‘grammar’, but also to start to understand the placement of statues as a dynamic, interrelated set of meaningful possibilities.
1. Locating Honorific Statues
To set up a stele next to a statue in order that reading a decree and looking at a statue enrich each other; to carve a decree for a Friend of Ptolemy IV on the base of a statue group of the king and his queen (as at the Amphiaraion)—such acts are about producing meaning in space. An honorific statue was set up somewhere to be looked at and experienced by multiple viewers over a long period of time—its meanings determined by its spatial context, which in turn it contributed to determining. Meaning was produced by a variety of factors: the intentions of the community and the honorand, the expectations of the community of viewers at any one moment, the experience of viewing, reading, and moving about on a particular day in the particular space where the statue was set up, the relation between any one statue and its neighbours, the evolution of the monumental context over time.
Honorific statues were involved, and involved their viewers, in the construction of civic space. In this work, by ‘space’, I mean the general physical dimensions within which things and people exist, and which can be mapped geometrically; even though it designates a concrete state, it is socially defined—public space, sacred space, private space, in any Hellenistic city. How does space affect social meaning? How is the meaning read and interpreted by those who live it? More specifically: how exactly does the location where an honorific statue was set up produce meaning? And which meanings? This chapter starts off with the investigation of space, to describe phenomena; the following will try, in experimental fashion, to explore social interactions, using a number of concepts (theories of place) and metaphors (competitive ecology).
Honorific statues were set up in most prominent locations, epiphanestatoi topoi. This concept, too, needs thinking about: what, exactly, was an epiphanestatos topos? What did it look like? How did it work? The first problem in studying these questions is one of sources. The epiphanestatoi topoi are known first through epigraphy, mostly the honorific decrees, (p.68) occasionally inventories or descriptions mentioning the site of statues, and secondly through the archaeology of urban space. If epigraphical mentions are significant (though not plentiful), the archaeological evidence is much poorer and more problematic: there is no easily legible Hellenistic agora or public shrine to help us see honorific statues in situ; no test case comparable to late antique Aphrodisias, where inscribed statue bases, the actual statues, and their original sites are known and can be fruitfully interpreted.2
The agora at Priene is filled with the foundations of statue bases, but there is no meaningful sequence of statues, or urban geography of statues, to be drawn from a drastically incomplete record (which is not to say that there is no meaningful history to be written from the plan). The same holds true for the agora of Thasos, where site‐specific patterns of clustering of statue bases can be observed from the surviving foundations (in front of the great north‐east stoa or the smaller ‘bâtiment à paraskénia’), but no names or absolute dates can be assigned in most cases; investigation is made more difficult by the rising of the water table.3 The agora of Athens has its millennium‐long archaeological record, and numerous bases from honorific statues can still be seen, displayed in front of the reconstructed Stoa of Attalos, and along the Panathenaic Way (Roman‐era square plinths, equestrians, and columnar bases); but almost none can be securely assigned to a site within the Agora, whose long history has also entailed the shifting and moving around of statues (notably those of Hellenistic kings, moved to make way for Agrippa’s Odeion). The shrine of Demos and the Charites, on the northern side of the Kolonos hill, would have provided a good example of a specific site for honorific statues—except that it was destroyed to make way for the deep trench of the Peiraieus–Kephissia electric train. The esplanade in front of the temple of Amphaiaraos at Oropos preserves an impressive series of statue bases; however, the majority of the equestrian statues in the Western group, once representing (probably) Hellenistic kings and statesmen, were reused to honour Roman generals and their friends: the identity and date of the original honorands, and the meaning of the sequence of statues, are lost. The Asklepieion of Epidauros is thronged with statue bases, but it is impossible, in the present state of the record, to map out the development of the statuescape and its social meanings; for instance, it is only by collating diverse publications and comparing them with physical remains on the ground that one discovers that two adjacent monuments are public honorific statues for members of the same family. In addition, the statue landscape in the Epidaurian Asklepieion was affected by the spoliation of the shrine under Sulla, and the reuse of almost all early and mid‐Hellenistic bases in the subsequent centuries.4 A similar situation pertains for the shrine of Apollo at Klaros: the Sacred Way is insufficiently excavated or published, pirates probably inflicted damage in the early first century BC, monuments were reused to honour Romans.5
In other cases, the material is too profuse: Delphi, Olympia, and Delos, after decades of excavation, are extremely complex and do not allow us easily to understand the general (p.69) workings of the statue landscape. All too often what we see on the site is misleading: the base of the private honorific for Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, found in a row of bases in the western part of the Altis (Inschr. Olympia 325) seems in situ, but in fact rests on the ground without a foundation, whereas the base shows cuttings for a lower block, as noted by Dittenberger: there is no certainty on the original site of this important monument.6 Even in Messene and Megalepolis, where recent excavation has revealed much new evidence about honorific statues with cases in situ, the picture is still fragmentary. The immense agora of Messene itself is still being uncovered, as opposed to the well‐excavated Asklepieion, south of the agora, densely peopled with statues. Only part of the similarly huge agora of Megalepolis has been uncovered, so that the dense cluster of statues before the archeion cannot be seen in a broader spatial and historical context.
Moreover, it is not simply a question of evidence, imperfect publication record, misleading published plans, and uninformative modern presentation of archaeological sites. Even if we had a site with a perfect archaeological record of Hellenistic honorific statues, the question of the epiphanestatos topos would not be simple to answer. In the Upper Gymnasion at Pergamon, one room was transformed into the setting for the statue of a great benefactor (‘Room B’).7 Yet it is too pat to deduce that the presence of the statue of this Diodoros Pasparos and other honorific monuments in the south‐east corner directly and unproblematically shows that that particular corner of the gymnasion was the most prominent spot. The Upper Gymnasion clearly shows the existence of multiple potential focuses for attention (Plan 11); the space of the gymnasion can be articulated in different ways, starting with its symmetry and axiality, which emphasizes a room set aside for the cult of the Attalid kings (‘Room H’). The south‐east corner was not inherently prominent because of any physical fact about the gymnasion as space, but was made so by the accumulation of monuments there; the epiphanestatos topos is a dynamic reality, created performatively by gestures as part of a complex space. A modern parallel might give pause for thought before assuming that the ‘most prominent site’ in a city is easy to identify. The whole population of Oradour‐sur‐Glane, a village in central France (Haute‐Vienne), was wiped out in 1944 by troops of a SS division. The atrocity is commemorated by a monument set up in 1996 in the departmental chef‐lieu, Limoges: the monument, atop a 7m high column, occupies a ‘prominent’ spot—a busy roundabout, at the intersection of the Limoges ring road and the Nationale 141. The then mayor of Limoges celebrated the spot as ‘très en vue’, since it was seen by thousands of motorists every day; yet the site is not meaningful, but trivial and unsatisfactory. Many similar examples of contested sites in modern towns have been studied: monuments and space are not simple issues.8
The case of the Upper Gymnasion at Pergamon could be set beside other examples of spaces where the richness of evidence shows the complexity of the construction of significant places out of civic space—for instance at Messene, where a particularly insistent memorial culture was mapped out on a new city founded in 369.9 What emerges is the need for patience in decoding the workings of space and meaning in the Hellenistic city. In the following pages, I wish to study the sites of statues with examples drawn from archaeology and epigraphy—first, by establishing a roster of possible sites, and examining the motives behind, and the meanings emplotted within, these sites. But I also will examine these sites as part of lived, acted‐upon spaces, by looking at detailed test cases, local and thematic—and try to open the way to think about actors and agency within apparently controlled civic spaces.
The phenomenon of honorific statuary occurred in public settings, often urban, always monumental: the public spaces of the Hellenistic city.10 What do we mean by public space in the Hellenistic city? There is to my knowledge no explicit theoretical, abstract discussion of the concept in late Classical or Hellenistic texts—no mention in Aristotle’s Politics or Plato’s Laws. Aristotle’s remark that a polis is a community of place comes in the context of a general discussion of sharing, and is not quite about public space;11 nor does public/private structure the discussion of the ‘parts of a city’ in the Onomasticon of Pollux.
However, the very absence of theoretical discussion of public space indicates to what extent its existence was taken for granted and co‐terminous with that of the polis itself.12 Homer’s cities and communities already have public meeting‐places and shrines, and publicness can be read in the archaeological record of the early polis, for instance in Dreros, Thasos, Naxos, or Eretria, or Megara Hyblaia and Kasmenai;13 all these sites have public spaces for meeting and for cultic activities as an organic part of town plans and planning.14 The concept of public space is clearly seen in the discussion of Hippodamos’ urbanistic projects, or the structuring of Attica seen in the Kleisthenic reforms, or the ideal cities of Plato and Aristotle.15 Public space appears in practical regulations such as the fifth‐century law governing the streets of Thasos, the responsibilities of the astynomoi in fourth‐century Athens, or the long astynomikos nomos of Pergamon, preserved in a Roman‐date inscription but going back to Hellenistic times;16 such officials notably protected public space such as streets from encroachment by private building (κατοικοδομεῖ ν), as well as by behaviour considered unsuitable. An inscribed regulation in Nisyros declares that ‘the space is public for five feet from the wall’ (to prevent private building too close to the city’s defences).17 The ‘Hippodamian’ grid‐plan adopted in later cities is not (simply) about egalitarianism and orderliness, as often stated,18 but also makes evident, in public form, what the difference is between the tightly packed but modular world of private space, and the significant public spaces, with their openness and complexity.
(p.71) The history of public space in the polis still remains to be written; what matters here is that public space is essential to the polis, as a human community rooted in a physical and concrete context. Of course, any community must have some form of common space, for circulation, meeting, and exchange; even the modern and postmodern Western, car‐centred consumer city has its malls and multiplexes. The spaces of the Hellenistic polis are historically specific, in their clear physical definition of circulation axes and common open areas (contrast the medieval and early‐modern ‘Islamic’ or ‘Arab’ city).19 Order; emphasis on human craftedness;20 clear division between public and private; shared memory and experience; polis culture and citizen values—all these elements underlie public space in the polis. This should not lead to idealizing the polis and seeing ‘democratic values’ everywhere: competition, injustice, and domination—in other words, history—can be read in its spaces, just as urban geographers detect anomie in the modern city (and indeed, something similar will be proposed further on in this book). But critical awareness does not preclude, as an opening move, examining the ways in which public space was articulated and made to work in the Hellenistic polis.
Space is absence; to put something within space is to take away from it. Public space is common property, legally owned by the whole community as a political entity—it is not anybody’s, but everybody’s: it is precisely not open for anybody to act on or in public space, and public permission has to be specifically granted for such an action. In the polis, this meant the supervision and control of the political community, through its institutions, the assembly, the council, the magistrates, with local variations on the exact forms of control and implementation. Control can be seen to be exercised negatively, by prohibitions. At Tymnos, in the Rhodian Peraia, a late Hellenistic decree orders the hierothutas to allow participants in public sacrifices to use a portico, but also to prevent anyone from lighting fires in the portico or nailing anything permanently to the portico’s structure: the aim is declared to be to prevent offences towards the gods, and to protect their statues; enforcement is entrusted to the magistrate, the public slave, and ‘whoever wishes among the demesmen’.21 The decree regulates the correct use of public, in this case sacred, space, ensures its enforcement by legitimizing processes of coercion (if need be of a hue‐and‐cry kind), and in its inscribed presence makes visible public authority over space. Similarly, an early Hellenistic decree from Miletos restricts the dedication of pinakes in the ‘new stoa’ in the shrine of Apollo Delphinios to the walls, declaring roof woodwork and columns out of bounds, on pain of a fine of 10 staters;22 at Delphi, an Amphiktyonic decree prohibits the setting up of dedications in the Stoa of Attalos, and the removal of any offending offerings.23 Most interestingly, a decree from statue‐mad Rhodes forbids anyone from ‘applying for the setting up of a statue or any other dedication in the lower part of the sacred enclosure (of Asklepios)—from the entrance gate to those dedications for which applications were made earlier—or in any other spot in which dedications, if set up, would hinder circulation’. Any such request to set up a statue in the shrine would be considered void, and any dedication would be removed by the astynomoi to another spot.24
Other such examples could be mentioned, for instance from Delphi, or Athens.25 All these examples concern the management of sacred space, from the point of view of practicality and (p.72) decorum. But sacred space is part of public space; the specific cases adduced above, arising out of unsatisfactory or conflictual situations where state authority had to decide, manage, repress—and allowed itself to be seen to do these things. These decrees make clear the polis’s authority over its public spaces, in a way which is not preserved for the agora, the gymnasion, or the theatre, as far as I know: the laws whose prohibitions first‐century Athenian ephebes had to observe, when allowed to set up portraits ‘where the laws do not forbid it’, are not explicitly recorded, and in any case were probably specific enactments, rather than general statements of principle.26
The act of setting up something permanent in public space entailed the involvement of public authorities, whose approval was needed.27 Hence a city granted topos to outsiders who wanted to set up statues within its public space: the expressions used are δοἐναι ( δεδό σθαι) / συγχωρῆσαι τό πον, to ‘give’ or, more grandly, to ‘consent to’ a location. The Kyzikenes acknowledged an honorific decree of the Parians for Apollodoros, son of Apollonios (a Kyzikene), the nesiarch (head of the League of Islanders) of the first two decades of the third century; the Kyzikenes acceded to the request for a spot in the agora at Kyzikos, where the Parians had wished to set up a statue of Apollodoros: δεδό σθαι δὲαὐτ οῖ ς καὶ τό |πον ἐν ῷι στΉσουσι τὴν εἰκό να, παρὰ τὰ ς τραπέ |ζας πρὸ τῆς στοᾶς τῆς Δωρικῆς, ‘let there be given to them (the Parians) a spot in which they will set up the statue, next to the (money‐changing) tables before the Doric stoa’.28 The Delians asked the citizens of Thessalonike ‘to give the finest site possible’ (δοἐναι τό πον ὡ ς βέ λτιστον) for a statue of Admetos, son of Bokros, proxenos of the Delians.29 The citizens of Apollonia on Pontos asked the Kallatians to ‘grant’ (συγχωρῆσαι) a site for the statue of a Kallatian honoured by Apollonia;30 a contingent of Cretan soldiers, sent to aid Ptolemy VI in his campaign on Cyprus against Ptolemy Euergetes II, honoured Aglaos, son of Theukles, of Kos, with bronze statues to be set up on Kos and on Delos. The decree ends with the stipulation that an ambassador is to ask the Koans to designate the finest spot for the dedication of the statue, and likewise the Athenians to designate the most conspicuous spot on Delos, by then an Athenian possession (c.154 BC).31
Likewise, in response to requests from individuals or groups within a city, the latter grants sites for honorific portraits. At Kykizos, the priests and priestesses of Meter Plakiane, then the kosmophylakes, ask for the public grant of a topos in which to set up honorific portraits of Kleidike, daughter of Asklepiades. In the first case, the priests and priestesses ask for τό πον ἐν τῇ ἀ νδρΉᾳἀ γορᾲ ἐπὶ τοἐπρογονικοἐαὐτῆς συνεδρί ου τὸ ν ἀ πὸ δύ σεως τοὺἀ νδριά ντος τοἐἀ δελϕοἐαὐτῆς Διονυσί ου τοἐ’ασκληπιά δου, ‘in the men’s agora, the location on (Kleidike’s) ancestral (p.73) exedra, to the west of the statue of her brother, Dionysios son of Asklepiades’. Even in the case of what seems to have been a family monument, siting was in the gift of the city.32 In Athens, the ephebes of the year 118/17 asked for the people to grant a site (ἐπιχωρῆσαι τό πον) for a statue. After the Hellenistic period,33 from the first century AD onwards, the same principle of public permission for statues is found in the abbreviation ψ( ηϕί σματι) β( ουλῆς) / β( ουλῆς καὶ ) δ( Ήμου), ‘by decree of the council/of the council and the people’; these often qualify privately erected statues, which are both authorized and dignified by the formal approval of the city’s political institutions.34
When a community decided to honour someone with a statue, and set it up within its own monumental public space, it did not need to grant a location, by definition, since the transaction involved only itself, as honouring agent and as possessor of legal rights over the space. Mostly, cities simply decided to ‘set up a statue’, without details on process; when there are details, we see that the city has decided to designate, or more specifically to have the council or magistrates designate, a suitable site. The Milesians decided to set up an equestrian statue of Antiochos I in a site designated by the council.35 The normal verbs are παραδεί κνυμι, or more frequently ἀ ποδεί κνυμι, also used for the act of appointing officials or ambassadors, and hence belonging to the realm of political decisions. At Theangela, a benefactor is honoured with a statue in the agora; the location is to be indicated by the prostatai, [ τὸ ν δέ τό ] πον οὗσταθΉσεται ἀ ποδειξά τω[ σαν οἱ ] πρό σταται.36 The statue decreed for the late second‐century Kolophonian benefactor Menippos was to be set up ‘in the shrine of Apollo Klarios, in the spot designated by the treasurer’ (ἐν τῶι παραδειχθησομέ νωι τό πωι ὑπὸ τοἐταμί ου).37 When the city of Dionysopolis honoured a great benefactor, Akornion, with a statue, the benefactor in fact set the statue up (and hence paid for it), but the city still granted the ‘most visible site of the agora’.38
The grant of honours by the Confederacy of Athena Ilias illustrates the distinctions in usage sketched out above. When the Confederacy honoured the gymnasiarch of the festival of Athena with a bronze statue, to be set up in the shrine of Athena at Ilion (there are two surviving decrees attesting this honour), the Confederacy sent envoys to ask the people of the Ilians to designate (παραδεῖ ξαι) the site for the statue.39 As L. Robert pointed out, the verb implies that the Confederacy enjoys control over space in the shrine; the Ilians are involved in the process, only to the extent of the administrative and practical matter of choosing the location for the statue. In contrast, when the Confederacy asks one of its member states, the polis of Abydos, to find a spot for a stele bearing the decree in honour of the Abydene gymnasiarch, Kydimos, the expression is δοἐναι στΉληι τό πον—the Confederacy does not control space within its constituent member states, only in the federal shrine, and must ask for a grant within Abydos, just like any other outside state. In contrast with the Confederacy of Athena Ilias, the decrees of the Delphic Amphiktiony never mention the polis of Delphi as (p.74) designating a site for honorific statues, and may have been directly involved in the details of administering space in the shrine of Apollo.40
This distinction (‘giving’ sites to outsiders, ‘designating’ sites when decisions happen within the community) is widely documented, and significant, even if there are variations and exceptions. For instance, outside communities ask for spots for stelai—not statues—to be ‘designated’. To ‘give’ and to ‘designate’ can be used interchangeably, and it is even possible for a body outside a polis to ask the latter to ‘designate a site’ for a statue, rather than to ‘give a site’, as would be expected on the basis of parallels; conversely, there may be an example, at Dionysopolis on Pontos, of an honorific decree ‘giving’, rather than designating, space within the city, for the statue of Akornion, a great benefactor.41 What is significant about linguistic practice is how it makes explicit the assumptions about space involved in the transaction of setting up an honorific statue.
In this respect, the practice of displacement (metaphora) of statues illuminates the consequence of public control of space. Displacement provides a dramatic instance of such control: just as the city gave space, it could take it away, revoke its grant, and move a statue to a new site considered more suitable,42 put another statue in front of it (see below), or do away with it altogether. In Lindos, in AD 17, it was possible to purchase and remove a statue from the shrine of Athena—after making a request to the Lindians, naturally.43 Displacement of statues is akin to the reuse of statues by recarving the inscription: both make visible the absoluteness of civic control over these very special objects, situated within its space. Some attempts to pre‐empt displacement and reuse attest to nervousness about the practice and, perhaps, its assumptions. The Chian decree for Lucius Nassius and his sons included an entrenchment clause, to ensure that the various portraits should not be displaced or reinscribed (ὅπως ταἐτα τε ἀ γά λματα καὶ οἱ ἀ νδρ ί αντες οἱ ἀ νασταθησό μενοι Λευκί ου τε καὶ τῶν υἱ ῶν αὐτοἐμὴμεταρθῶσιν μηδὲμετεπιγραϕῶσιν: ‘so that these (marble) statues and the statues which will be set up of Lucius and his sons shall not be displaced nor have their inscriptions changed’).44 A dedication (not necessarily a private honorific statue) from Hypata was entrusted to Rome and the Theoi Sebastoi ‘to keep as un‐displaced and un‐reinscribed’ ([ ϕυ] λ[ ά ] ττεσθαι ἀ μετά θετα καὶ ἀ μ[ ε] τεπί γραϕα).45
The practices surrounding the granting and managing of space amount to a tautology: making explicit public control over public space. The point is obvious, but perhaps still worth exploring. The transaction of setting up an honorific statue within public space involves time, money, people; the ritual interplay of institutions, and the final monumental result, make civic control visible. The honorific portraits of Kleidike, at Kyzikos (above), were not simply subject to the grant of space, they also had to undergo dokimasia; approval by public institutions (the council or another board of magistrates).46 Just as public inscriptions act to capture individual identity within civic terms (euergetical exchange, communitarian ethics) and a monumental time‐frame (Chap. 1), the grant or designation of topos for a statue restates public control over individual identity within meaningful space. The passing of the decrees in council and assembly, and the inscription of decrees recording the grant of topos act as privileged narratives of the community defining and embedding identities; the statue itself offers a concrete statement of these processes and their imaginary spaces.
(p.75) As Wilhelm writes, ‘when space was lacking, it had to be created’.47 But the constraints were not simply about the tyranny of practicality. In offering topos for the monumental, permanent image of an honorand, the community granted and controlled access to scarce resources: not only public space, but also visibility, honour, and memory. The handling of these scarce resources, to meaningful effect, created public space in the Hellenistic polis: space was not simply ‘produced’ by economic or social forces, but the result of creative acts by a civic community. In addition to the mobilization and display of political institutions, civic space works through creative acts, which entailed the careful use of sites within the city, to generate meaning: the vocabulary of topos enables statue practice as spatial discourse.48 That, at least, is the story which civic narratives would have us believe, just as inscriptions tell us a story of civic control; for now, to explore this culture, we have to follow these narratives and their fictions.
3. Civic Sites: From Typology to Grammar
So where were honorific statues set up? ‘In the most conspicuous spot’, as honorific decrees often specify. The huge pillar base, supporting a four‐horse chariot and the portrait of an Attalid ruler (later reinscribed as a monument honouring M. Agrippa), at the entrance of the Athenian Akropolis, occupies one such site (see below, 117). But such sites are rare; if all statues were truly to be placed in the most conspicuous spot, the result would be an anarchical competition for height, prime real estate, and visibility—in fact the state of affairs, as can be seen in international shrines such as the shrine of Apollo at Delphi, with its skyscraper‐like jostling of high bases.49 Hellenistic cities set up statues of their benefactors in a precise set of civic spaces, which it is easy to illustrate from the epigraphical, archaeological, and literary evidence, in order to establish a typology of the ‘typical’ honorific townscape:50 the agora, the civic shrine, the gymnasion, and the theatre are the main rubrics of this typology.
However, to establish a typology is to raise questions about the workings of statues within their social context: when are honorific statues first erected in a specific type of location (for instance the gymnasion)? How uniform is practice? What governs the choice of a location? Later, I aim to examine broader questions of impact and meaning, and the embedding of civic ideologies within not simply civic space, but also civic place (Chap. 4); for now, I would like to nudge the typological survey of the spaces involved in the direction of a grammar of civic space—by taking each of the four venues mentioned above, examining where statues are set up within them, and asking why statues are set up in particular spots, to produce which meanings.
‘To set up a statue of him in the most prominent spot of the agora’: honorific statues are well attested in the agoras of the Hellenistic cities, by literary references, by explicit references in honorific decrees (such as the formula just quoted), and by archaeological finds of bases in situ, or of foundations. The earliest and most abundant evidence concerns Athens, from the early fourth century onwards.51 Honorific statues were consistently erected in this particular site throughout the Hellenistic period, with a particularly dense development in the later Hellenistic period; clusters of statues can be traced on the map, in a variety of significant sites (see below, 103–7, and Plan 1). Other clear examples of honorific statuescapes in agoras are (p.76)
In the late fourth century, Lykourgos fondly imagined Athenian practice to be unique, and the agoras of other cities to be full of statues of athletes rather than generals and politicians (Leokr. 51); even for this relatively early period, Lykourgos’ statement does not seem to be accurate, and reflects Athenian exceptionalist self‐image rather than real practice. In the Peloponnese, Megalepolis, a new city foundation, provides a fourth‐century example of honorific statues in the agora;53 in Ionia, Erythrai offers an early example, with an epigraphically attested statue of Maussollos set up in the agora; the statue of the tyrannicide Philitas (late fourth century BC?) was probably also erected in the agora.54 An anecdote mentions Alexander revelling around, and crowning, a statue of the tragic poet Theodektes in the agora of Phaselis in 334. If authentic, the story would be another fourth‐century example of a statue in the agora of a city in Asia Minor.55 It is true that the statue might have been set up by Theodektes himself as a dedication, or by a relative (see below, Chaps. 5–6), as well as by the city of Phaselis; nonetheless, the location and dating of the anecdote at Phaselis imply a statue habit in a Hellenized city within the Achaimenid empire, and raise the possibility that public honorific monuments were already common in the agora of many Greek and Hellenized cities by the second half of the fourth century.
During the third century, as the honorific statue habit takes hold throughout the Hellenistic world, the agora appears as a prime site for publicly decreed, full‐size bronze (and marble) statuary in honour of benefactors. At Erythrai, the agora contined in use as the site for (p.77) honorific statues, such as that of the great benefactor Polykritos, and that of his son, whose statue was set up next to his father’s (and next to a stele, erected earlier, inscribed with the honours decreed for Polykritos before the statue).56 Even if the evidence will never be complete enough for a complete dated list of all Hellenistic cities where honorific statues stood in the agora, and hence for an exact history of the spread of the practice, it is clear that this practice mirrored the honorific statue habit itself: rare examples appear in the first half of the fourth century; they grow more frequent towards the end of that century, spread during the third century, becoming common from the second century onwards. Most, or indeed all, Hellenistic poleis by 200–150 BC (at least in mainland Greece from the Peloponnese to Macedonia, the islands, Asia Minor, and the Black Sea region) had honorific statues and painted portraits in their agoras, as indicated by the combination of epigraphical, literary, and archaeological evidence. The statue of the benefactor Soteles (early first century) was set up ‘wherever he wants, in the most prominent spot in the agora’ of Pagai (as is known from the decree for Soteles; the base has also been found, though not in situ).57 In Chaironeia, the citizens set up a statue of Lucullus in the agora (next to a statue of Dionysos), for his help after a terrible episode during the First Mithradatic War.58 At Eretria, the agora has not been fully excavated, but its area is known, and a sounding has yielded a third‐century statue base, from a monument set up by the Delphians in honour of an Eretrian hieromnemon (discussed above, 25), as well as two foundations for statues, probably equestrian.59 On Chios, the statues of L. Nassius (above) were set up on columns in the agora. In Macedonia, honorific statues are attested in Thessalonike by an honorific decree,60 and in the huge agora of Pella by foundations of bases in front of the north stoa, the bronze fragments of a splendid equestrian statue,61 and more whimsically, a poem by Poseidippos:
- Πελλαῖ ον γέ νος ἀ μό ν⋅ ἔοιμι δὲβί βλον ἐλί σσων
- † αμϕω† λαοϕό ρωι κεί μενος εἰν ἀ γορῆι
My race is from Pella; may I be set up, unscrolling a book, (text corrupt) in the bustling agora.62
In Asia Minor, the recently discovered base of the statue for Apollonios, who died in battle leading his fellow citizens of Metropolis in Ionia during the war of Aristonikos, was set up ‘in the most conspicuous spot of the agora’ (not found in situ); a painted portrait for the kitharode (and local ‘boss’) Anaxenor was set up in the agora of Magnesia on Maeander (presumably in a portico), as known from a reference in Strabo.63 Statues of ‘the kings’ (Seleukids) in the agora of Magnesia under Sipylos are mentioned in the treaty between Smyrna and the colonists at Magnesia.64 The example is noticeable, because the exact civic status of Magnesia at this moment is unclear; even so, the urban settlement has an agora, and statues in the agora. Furthermore, these statues are the scene of an oath by the colonists: the royal images, even though not strictly cultic (they are called eikones and not agalmata) are an important focal point for the urban landscape, and make the kings visible, and hence an object of loyalty and public gestures.
(p.78) Examples could be multiplied easily,65 if tiresomely.66 The cases mentioned above, as well as many others, illustrate the normalcy of the agora as a site for honorific monuments. When the Parians asked the Kyzikenes to grant space for a statue of one of their citizens (the nesiarch Apollodoros, discussed above), they took for granted that this statue should stand in the agora. In the Pisidian city of Adada, during the Roman empire, three agoranomoi were honoured for urbanistic works, including ‘moving the columns and the bases and the statues from the agora’—the presence of honorific statues was a normal part of the rich, ornate décor urbain which characterized the Hellenistic and post‐Hellenistic city.67 (The three agoranomoi were in turn honoured by the council and the people with a gilt bronze statue.) At Oinoanda, it is the presence of honorific statues, along with the presence of stoas, that shows that the so‐called ‘esplanade’ was the Hellenistic agora.68 A special case is the shared space of the Italian traders on the island of Delos, the so‐called ‘Agora des Italiens’. This was an open square bordered by porticoes, in which the Italians set up honorific statues of Roman officials and of their benefactors, such as C. Ofellius Rufus, whose large marble statue survives: it showed him in a strikingly heroic pose, naked and leaning on a spear, a sheathed sword in his left hand and the chlamys draped over the left side of his body (below, 284–6).69
Within the agora, statues usually ended up sited in groups—collocations, clusters, alignments. The effect of repetition and replication give a visual form to the central trope of the honorific decree—the social reproduction of the good citizen. I will consider the politics of collocation and serialization later on (121–6); for now, what matters is to observe the tendency to construct long series of honorific statues when erecting such monuments in the agora—especially along the stoas which are one of the defining features of the agora as public space: this can be seen in many archaeological sites, for instance on Thasos (Plan 9), in Kassope, or in Athens (Plan 1: in front of the Metroon); the Prienian agora, in contrast, shows a row of statues across the whole space (Plan 13 and below, 98–9).
It is worth wondering, in the face of all this evidence, why the agora was so obviously the normal setting for honorific statues. It was the public space par excellence,70 owned and controlled by the community, its ample dimensions contrasting with the tight network of private urban space, which was systemically structured around it. The agora was the appropriate setting to produce visibility and publicity, essential to the social‐reproductive workings of the honorific monument, as the inscriptions make clear (especially through the exemplary and moral force of the ‘hortative clause’ at the fulcrum of nearly every honorific decree: above, Chap. 1). The agora also was civic space par excellence. It was the site for the workings of civic institutions and offices: meeting‐places and public buildings often were located on the agora. It was a privileged site for public epigraphy, the monumental recording of civic decision‐making, especially honorific,71 the trace of public gestures such as dedications by magistrates—a site for civic stories, though of course the exact import of these stories needs examining: communitarian political culture or elite dominance? The answer to the question varies, according to (p.79) date, location, and theories about the nature of the post‐Classical city. The importance of the agora as a privileged space, linked with the nature of citizenship, appears in a detail of a Teian decree regulating honours for Antiochos III: the first entrance of the Teian ephebes into the agora was, as an official group occasion, celebrated by a public sacrifice under supervision by the gymnasiarch, and probably marking their accession to the status of full adult citizens.72
At first, this sort of evidence might suggest that the agora was a purely civic space, dedicated to polis institutions and ideology. Archaeological and epigraphical examples illustrate this prejudice or ideal about the purely political nature of the agora. At Priene, the agora proper is separated from a smaller space, often identified as a market. In Thessaly, a ‘sacred agora’ was separated from the mercantile agora.73 The ‘men’s agora’ attested at Kyzikos (above, 72–3) is presumably an exclusively political agora. But the reality of the agora was more complex.74 First, the agora was also a space open to strangers. In many cases, the agora was close to the harbour, as at Teos75 or Kaunos. The presence of foreigners, and their gaze, was taken into account: the agora as civic space was itself a monument of the community of citizens, intended for outsiders to see. Secondly, the agora was a market, a space for economic exchange, for work and for selling, where the Greeks deceived each other under oath (as one Classical Greek imagined a Persian imagining the agora).76 A permanent, monumental trace of these activities can be found in a particular type of evidence, the dedications made by the agoranomos: offerings to Hermes, or dedications of weights. The presence, then the profusion, of honorific images in the agora represents an attempt at controlling this space of exchange, by giving the euergetical discourse and the underlying civic ideology a permanent, privileged physical form. The daily, real dramas and changing transactions of the agora happened in the constant presence, simultaneously concrete and abstract, human and symbolical, of honorific portraits and their ethical force. From the raised position of their bases, bronze statues, with their faces and their gaze, defined and supervised the central open space, even though the actual human occupation of this space fluctuated according to time, season, and weather. The stoas were lined with honorific painted portraits, kept out of the weather but also repeating the effect of the statues, putting movement and exchange under the objectified, challenging gaze of good citizens, one after the other.
When the citizens of Nisyros decided to honour a benefactor, they decreed a crown and a statue, the latter to be set up ‘on the agora or in a shrine, whichever seems the most profitable’.77 The equivalence (attested elsewhere)78 is a symptom of the widespread importance of civic shrines as the site for the display of honorific portraits, comparable to the importance of the agora. As for the agora, the evidence, literary, epigraphical, and archaeological, provides a plethora of examples of the practice of setting up honorific statues in shrines.
(p.80) Thus the Athenian Akropolis was the setting for honorific portraits of late Classical (probably), Hellenistic, and Roman grandees, Athenian and foreign (see below). At Priene, the statue of Megabyxos79 was set up in the shrine of Athena, which also shows rows of base foundations which may have borne honorific monuments (see further below). At Erythrai, while the bronze statue of Maussollos was set up in the agora, the marble statue of his wife Artemisia was set up in the shrine of Athena; further bronze statues of Hekatomnid dynasts were set up in a shrine behind the harbour agora at Kaunos, a site which later received statues of Roman officials.80 On Paros, the Ptolemaic official Aglaos, son of Theukles, of Kos, was honoured by the Parians with a four‐cubit marble statue (high‐grade stone being cheaper than bronze on the island): the monument was set up in the shrine of Hestia (mid‐second century).81 The citizens of Apollonia, on the Black Sea, honoured one Hegesagoras, sent c.200 as navarch by the allied city of Istros, with a bronze statue, in full arms, standing on a ship’s prow: this naval monument was set up in the shrine of Apollon Iatros.82 All these examples illustrate the practice of setting up statues in civic shrines within the urban centre of Hellenistic poleis. Cases could be multiplied,83 and would illustrate the precocity and prevalence of the practice across the whole Hellenistic world: in Macedonia, a decree of the city of Dion stipulates the erection of an honorific statue—a relatively uncommon practice in Hellenistic Macedonia—in the shrine of Zeus Olympios.84
In other cases, communities set up statues in extra‐urban shrines that belonged to them. The Samians set up honorific statues in the shrine of Hera, seven kilometres south of the urban centre, from the early second century onwards (with a hiatus during the first half of the first century, before a profusion of statues in the Julio‐Claudian period).85 Likewise, the Epidaurians set up honorific statues at the famous Asklepieion, starting in the fourth century, and continuing into the Roman period (when the city set up new honorifics, but also reused Hellenistic, probably private, exedras).86 The Eretrians used the shrine of Artemis at Amarynthos, where three public honorific portraits were dedicated;87 the Milesians set up statues in the shrine of Apollo at Didyma;88 the citizens of Lykosoura, in Arkadia, set up an honorific portrait of Polybios not in their city, but in a nearby holy site: the shrine of Despoina, famous for the statues sculpted by the artist Damophon of Messene.89 The shrine of Apollon at Klaros (p.81) was used for honorific statues by the Kolophonians—specifically, the citizens of the complicated city‐state with two urban centres, Old Kolophon (which declined during the Hellenistic period) and Notion (whose urban and institutional life continued in the Hellenistic period, and which lay much closer to the shrine: a few hundred metres, as opposed to the seven or so km that separate the shrine from Old Kolophon).90 It can still be considered an extra‐urban shrine, albeit a special one.
Within the shrine, choices had to be made on the exact site of honorific statues. Most prominently, honorific portraits could be located within the temple itself.91 The earliest documented case is probably an over‐life‐size statue of Ada, the Hekatomnid ruler, set up in the cella of the temple of Athena at Priene (as shown by the findspot of the head of the statue).92 One of the many honorific reliefs for Polybios, the Achaian historian and statesman, was set up in the temple of Leto at Mantineia.93 A much later example is the statue of Adobogiona, the Galatian lady, set up in the cella of the temple of Hera at Pergamon (the base is still in situ, though a head found nearby should probably not be associated with it).94 The first‐century Mytilenaian benefactor Potamon received a statue (among many others) in the pronaos of the temple of Asklepios.95 Location in the temple can often be explained as an honorific gesture reserved for persons with particular connection with the cult. On Anaphe, a priest of ‘the greatest gods, Serapis and Isis and the gods around them’ received permission to set up in the temple a painted portrait of himself, inscribed as a public honorific image.96 Athenian orgeones (cult associations) regularly set up (painted) honorific portraits inside their temples, to recompense members who had performed priestly duties to general satisfaction.97 The statue granted to Aglaos of Kos might have been set up within the circular temple which probably sheltered the statue of Hestia on Paros.98
In some cases, the location of honorific statues in the temple had cultic connotations. An akrolithic statue of Philetairos, called both eikon and agalma, was located by the Kymaians in the hieros oikos of Philetairos: the statue was both honorific (in intent) and semi‐cultic, in nature, in setting, and in practice.99 The colossal statue of Attalos III, in armour and trampling on spoils, set up as a sunnaos image of Asklepios Soter, at Pergamon, was explicitly described as an agalma, a sacred image.100 Among the nine statues granted by the Knidians to their super‐benefactor Artemidoros, one was ‘a gilt statue, to share the temple with Artemis (p.82) Hyakynthotrophos and Epiphanes’, εἰκό να χρυσέ ον σύ νναον [ τ] ᾶι ’αρτά μιτι τᾶι ‘Ιακυνθοτρό ϕωι [ κ] αὶ ’Επιϕανεῖ. It is true that Artemidoros was also the priest for life of Artemis, but the adjective makes the cultic intention clear; the honour was part of other isotheoi timai, such as an altar and a festival named for Artemidoros.101 Such honours are well attested for the Roman emperors, starting with Augustus, whose statue was set up in the cella of the temple of Apollo at Klaros, and of Athena at Priene.102 The practice here shades into that of ruler‐cult for the Roman emperor.
If not in the actual temple, honorific statues could occupy spots close to the temple. The Prienian honorific decree for Megabyxos specifies that his statue will be set up ‘in the shrine of Athena, in front of the metopion of the temple’, in front of and aligned with one of the antas.103 Pausanias saw statue bases in front of the shrine of the Mother of the Gods in the agora of Megalepolis; one of these at least was an honorific.104 The equestrian statue immediately north of the temple of Amphiaraos, at the Oropian Amphiaraion, occupies a prominent, privileged spot, separated from the rest of the arrayed statues by the road that leads into the shrine; this statue may have been one of the earliest, and it was the first to be rededicated, to Sulla (Plan 3).105 An elongated base (known by its foundation course) in front of the temple of Dionysos by the theatre of Eretria, may have borne an equestrian statue, located in a very prominent spot for visitors to the theatre, who would have seen the statue and the temple in the same glance.106
Finally, the multiplication of honorific statues (like that of other votive offerings) dictated the construction of series of monuments, as happened in the agora. Such series are visible in ‘sacred ways’, in the Samian Heraion107 or within the shrine of Apollo at Klaros (the stretch between monumental entrance and temple was lined with a family group of the Attalids, statues for great civic benefactors such as Menippos and Polemaios, statues for Roman officials);108 similarly, on Thasos, a row of exedras in the agora clearly lines the passage from the harbourside entrance, towards an altar (Plan 9). Series are also traceable in the shrines: the accumulation of bases around the temple of Asklepios at Messene (Fig. 3.2) or around the temple in the Epidaurian Asklepieion (Fig. 3.3), underline the focal nature of the building in the centre of a sacred precinct.
Why do communities set up statues in shrines? A number of general reasons can be proposed. As seen in the previous chapter, honorific statues are, in origin, votive offerings, as their inscriptions often make clear: dedication of such statues in shrines reflects their origin and nature. However, public votive offerings are possible in the agora (or indeed, anywhere else within the city’s spaces); it is the inscription which determines, performatively, the nature of a statue as votive. The choice of a civic shrine is determined by its nature as a privileged site for dedication, because of repeated religious activity and, in the case of most poleis, because of the prestigious history of the shrine, embodied in its monumental appearance and the depth and continuity implied by past dedications, public and private.109 As privileged sacred site, as the venue for ritual activity, the shrine also ensured publicity for honours: this is especially true (p.83)
The great civic shrines were closely linked to the political life and identity of their communities, in ritual and in monumental form. They served as political gestures, such as the inscription of public documents, diplomatic or honorific: the phenomenon is attested from the Classical period (notably on the Athenian Akropolis) onwards.110 The shrine of Athena at Priene was probably used for honorific statues, and was certainly used for honorific inscription, as is clear from the patterns of surviving epigraphy. This is the context for the setting up of honorific statues, as part of a continuum of monumental culture: inscribed stelai, public votives, public sacred buildings. In turn, the presence of honorific statues contributed to the politicization or ‘officialization’ of sacred space, tipping the balance away from the private character lent by individual votive offerings.
In the case of subdivisions of the polis, a local shrine not only was the most prominent venue in the deme, but also could serve as monumental public space, especially since local identity was based on shared cultic activity. The mixed population of demesmen and soldiers in the Attic demes of Rhamnous and Eleusis set up their honorific monuments in the local shrines (the shrine of Nemesis at Rhamnous and the Eleusinion respectively);111 local cult associations in Attica set up painted portraits in their shrines, starting in the early Hellenistic period.112 At Mylasa, the syngeneia of Pormonou dedicated an honorific portrait at the shrine of Sinuri, a local deity; the inhabitants of Olymos, once an independent polis, later taken over by Mylasa, set up an honorific portrait in their temple of Apollo.113 The Lindians, a subdivision of the synoikized city‐state of Rhodes, used their spectacular shrine of Athena to put up their own honorific statues.114 In analogous fashion, priests or sacred officials were honoured with honorific portraits in the shrines with which they are involved: at Demetrias, a cultic association of Sarapis honoured Kriton, son of Kritolaos, the priest appointed by the city, with a painted portrait ‘in the most prominent spot of the Sarapieion’, for his goodwill towards them and his piety towards the divine.115 A Koinon of Heroistai, in second‐century Lydia (Kaystros valley), honoured Stratonike, the mother of two of the leaders of the association, with a painted portrait in the heroon upon the news of her death.116 The cult‐officials termed melanephoroi set up honorific portraits in the Sarapeion C on Delos.117
Civic shrine, ‘local’ shrine—these general considerations should not hide the diversity and particularity of individual cases; and still leave the question of the specific choice of a shrine as a venue for honorific statues. An obvious reason to choose a shrine was the services of the honorand to a deity or particular shrine. The sculptor Damophon of Messene was honoured with bronze statues set up in shrines (at Lykosoura, in the shrine of Despoina; on Leukas, in the shrine of Aphrodite Limenarchis);118 the setting was appropriate, since Damophon had worked on sacred sculpture in the relevant shrines. The marble statue of Aglaos, mentioned (p.85) above, was set up in the shrine of Hestia at Paros, because he had adorned the cult image of the goddess with a golden headband.
However, in many cases, the exact reasons for choosing to set up a statue in a shrine, rather than elsewhere, escape us. It is not easy to articulate precisely why the Erythraians choose to set up a marble image of Artemisia in the shrine of Athena, whereas Maussollos received a bronze statue in the agora (I. Erythrai 8): had Artemisia shown particular piety towards that deity and her shrine? Was the choice of marble, and of the shrine of the female goddess, felt to be more appropriate, in the early fourth century, for a female honorand? Furthermore, why did the Prienians first decide to set up a statue of the Seleukid officer Larichos (probably residing near Priene) in the shrine of Athena, before changing their mind and considering a site in the agora more suitable?119 Why did the Smyrnians choose to honour foreign judges from Kyme with honorific statues in the shrine of Aphrodite Stratonikis, rather than the agora? In fact, we do not know where else the Smyrnians set up honorific portraits, of citizens and foreigners, during the Hellenistic period (the Hellenistic agora remains a mystery).120 Likewise, it is unclear why some statues of Romans were set up in the agora of Kaunos, and others in the shrine just above the agora.
What remains clear is the major importance of civic shrines, as an element in the typological register of sites for statues, and hence in the grammar of spatial choices within the Hellenistic townscape, when communities decided to set up honorific monuments. In spite of the inscrutability, for modern observers, of decisions taken in the remote social contexts of the Hellenistic poleis, we may be sure that they reflected meaningful choices: for instance, at Pergamon, the statues set up by the demos in the shrine of Demeter and Kore are those of women (including a foreign queen), honoured for their womanly virtues (restraint, conjugal love) and their piety.121
The third main venue for honorific statues was the gymnasion, an important element in the post‐Classical polis: a publicly funded institution, specifically intended for boys, adolescents, and young men, devoted to physical exercise, education, military training, cultural and festive activities, open to citizens and, increasingly, to foreigners.122 It was an important site for the performance of civic ideologies (especially the euergetical exchange of benefaction and charis) and Greek identity; it also existed as a concrete place, a topos (as the epigraphical documents often term it).123 Its physical shape was shaped by its functions: an open central space for physical activities, lined with porticoes, completed by a series of rooms and enclosed spaces, and (often) a covered running track (xystos) and open‐air racetrack (paradromis).124
(p.86) Honorific portraits, among the physical features of the gymnasion, appear at the very end of the third century BC.125 Such portraits of gymnasiarchs become more popular from the second century BC, and there are many examples of bronze statues, or painted portraits, set up in the gymnasion, by the city, or by the young and less young users of the gymnasion itself. The Eretrian gymnasiarchs who were honoured with statues in the shrine of Artemis Amarysia also saw statues of themselves set up in the gymnasion in the town of Eretria.126
On the ground, a number of spots were available for honorific portraits. Statues were set up before the porticoes, often on the edges of the open space of the palaistra. At Ephesos, the statue of the gymnasiarch Diodoros was set up ‘in front of the portico on the east side’;127 a colossal marble statue found in the Lower Gymnasion at Priene was perhaps set up on a large base in such a spot, in front of a column of the northern stoa, in the centre of the colonnade.128 An exedra, once bearing a statue group, occupies the south‐east corner of the palaistra of the Upper Gymnasion at Priene—in this case, sacrificing some small amount of palaistra space for the monument (Plan 16). In the gymnasion at Amphipolis, a base in front of the northern stoa perhaps belonged to an honorific statue for a benefactor.129 In the Upper Gymnasion at Pergamon, an exedra occupies a very similar spot to the statue base in the palaistra of the Prienian lower gymnasion, in the centre of the colonnade of the northern stoa.130 In addition, many statue bases were found in front of the three porticoes. The Middle Gymnasion also reveals statue bases in front of the main building.131 The statue of the Pergamene benefactor Metrodoros was set up ‘in the paradromis’: though this has proved problematic to locate archaeologically,132 it should designate an open race track parallel to a covered one; the location of the statue of Metrodoros might have resembled the statues set up before porticoes. At Eretria, the statues of a pair of benefactors (father and son) stood in some relation to a bema, a platform which might have been part of the stadium.133
In other cases, the honorific portraits were located within the covered spaces which were an important part of the gymnasion, for circulation and activities. The painted portraits of gymnasiarchs were certainly dedicated in such spaces, perhaps in the porticoes lining the central palaistra, as portaits of civic benefactors were set up in the stoas of the agora at Priene. At Eretria, the benefactor Theopompos was honoured with a statue probably located in the elaiotheseion (‘room K’); the bases located in the northern stoa, at the point of transition to the complex of important rooms, may also have borne honorific monuments.134 The gymnasion at Messene was reached through a covered walkway, whose colonnade, open onto the stadium, sheltered statues.135 Honorific statues were also located within the rooms in the gymnasion. In the gymnasion at Amphipolis, the large statue of Apellas, son of Diogenes, dominated a small (p.87) room to the north of the west stoa (the base is still in situ).136 Among the honours for L. Nassius, at Chios, statues of his sons were set up in the akroaterion (lecture room) of the gymnasion.137 At Delos, the gymnasiarch Sosilos was honoured with a statue in the exedrion, a large open lecture and assembly room, within which it probably stood in a shallow niche (the back of the base is curved).138 In the excavated gymnasion (GD 76, probably the late second‐century successor to an earlier gymnasion), a small room received two honorific statues, one on a base, the second on a 2.16m high column, both set up by the aleiphomenoi.139 The great benefactor of Pergamon, Diodoros Pasparos, already mentioned earlier, was honoured with two statues, one by the neoi, one by the people, set up in special rooms in the gymnasion.140
At first sight, the reason for the location of statues in closed rooms might seem practical, to avoid taking up the spaces reserved for violent physical movement. Yet the main effect of locating honorific portraits ‘indoors’ was to impose the presence of benefactors, at bottlenecks in the circulation of persons, in spaces where gatherings and activities occurred, or within spaces specifically designed to create an encounter with the image of the benefactor and heighten the image’s impact. A slightly later example comes from the gymnasion at Messene, where two honorific statues, one clothed, one naked, were erected in ‘Room IX’, at the end of the main access into the gymnasion, presenting an imposing sight to the visitor.141
The recipients of statuary honours in the gymnasion are usually linked with that institution, especially gymnasiarchs honoured for their benefactions and for their behaviour in office, to the benefit of the gymnasion, as physical entity, as a civic institution, and as a human group. At Halikarnassos in the third century Diodotos, son of Philonikos, after loaning the city 33,400 drachmai free of interest for work on the gymnasion, was honoured with a crown, and a statue to be set up ‘in the gymnasion, in order that there may be a memorial (ὑπό μνημα) of his zeal which he showed towards the gymnasion and towards the collection of money beyond his own abilities and towards other matters’.142 Associations of men frequenting the gymnasion, when honouring benefactors, set up honorific portraits and stelai within the gymnasion.143 Generally, the honouring of benefactors within the gymnasion reflects the latter’s workings as an enclosed civic world with its own sociability, patterned on the values of the polis, but given physical and ritual form within the walls of the gymnasion.144
The details of honorific inscriptions for gymnasiarchs allow us to see this world in action, and the final choice of topos as the result of process, discourse, interaction, mobilized in a social narrative between various actors: the city, the users of the gymnasion (young and old), the benefactor. The gymnasiarch Euelthon was honoured by the neoi after they had gone en masse, in a 153‐strong column, to petition the civic authorities of Kolophon.145 The Ephesian gymnasiarch Diodoros, honoured with a statue in front of a stoa (above), was in fact the beneficiary of (p.88) a petition by the neoi to the council, to ask for honours (including a statue) for their gymnasiarch, to acknowledge his care for their eukosmia, euandria, and philoponia: Diodoros’ activity is described in highly moralizing, protreptic vocabulary.146 Other honorific texts could be more concrete in their details—the inscription on a statue base from the gymnasion at Mylasa records that the gymnasiarch Leontiades provided oil, all day long, for the paroikoi, the metoikoi, and the xenoi who did ‘not have a share of the anointment in the gymnasion’.147
In addition to these civic benefactors, Hellenistic cities set up statues of rulers in the gymnasion: the bronze statue of a Ptolemy adorned the gymnasion (named Ptolemaion) in Athens.148 In Pergamon, a colossal gilt statue (eikon) of Attalos III stood in the gymnasion;149 the inscription made it clear this was a public honorific statue.150 However, this particular statue was in fact set up by the gymnasiarch; the fact that it was labelled as a public honorific was unusual, and worthy of comment in the honorific decree for the gymnasiarch. Many of the statues of rulers in gymnasia seem to have been set up by gymnasiarchs, often as cultic gestures (the statues are termed agalmata).151 They hence belong to a particular subset of a particular genre within the honorific statue habit, namely the practice of setting up privately statues of very powerful outsiders (below, 185–6), as a gesture of visible loyalism and relationality; the practice of cultic honours also belongs to the same range of demonstrative loyalism and symbolic gestures in the face of external power.
Finally, the gymnasion was the site for funerary honours. Statues for deceased young men were set up by the city or by their relatives and friends, as a gesture of commemoration and consolation (the statues of the sons of Lucius Nassius, mentioned several times already, in fact belong to this category).152 Furthermore, cultic statues were part of heroizing or cultic posthumous honours for great benefactors, such as those offered to C. Vaccius Labeo at Kyme, or C. Iulius Artemidoros at Knidos.153 Both practices are attested only in the very late Hellenistic period, from the first century onwards.
In the inventory of the Delian gymnasion drawn up in the years after the Athenian take‐over of the island, only two full‐size male bronze statues are mentioned (of which one is almost certainly an honorific portrait).154 In other cases, for instance at Messene, it is less easy to judge from the extant evidence what place the honorific genre occupied, as opposed to other strands of visual culture. It is true that in addition to honorific monuments, many other material signs (p.89) of honorific culture occupied the gymnasion. Stelai bearing honorific decrees were set up in the gymnasion;155 the cultic statues of the kings, and later civic benefactors, mentioned above, were the recipients of certain types of viewing and behaviour.
Though honorific stelai and cult agalmata are close in origin, effect, and nature to the honorific statue, it must be also be recognized that the honorific was only one of the constituents of the visual and physical world of the gymnasion. The inventory of dedications in the gymnasion at Delos, in 155/154 BC, mentions a plethora of votive offerings (shields, many painted and even gilt, torches from torch‐races, and ‘very many votive plaques’) and statues or, more frequently, statuettes of deities (especially Eros and Herakles), and forty‐one herms.156 In the first century AD, the gymnasion at Messene contained high‐quality marble statues of Herakles and Theseus, replicas of famous Classical models (the Theseus notably seems to have been a replica of the Polykleitan Theseus).157 Dedications in the gymnasia included high art: at Rhodes, the number of anathemata in the gymnasion is noted by Strabo (14.2.5). The Venus de Milo was probably such a dedication; at Tanagra, the painting of the poetess Corinna, seen by Pausanias, was almost certainly a dedication (by an individual or by the city).158 The graffiti from the gymnasion, at Delos as elsewhere, reflect many of the same deities (especially Eros) as the sculptural evidence, and the ephebes’ and young men’s concern for competition and victory.159 Another important concern is the social contacts and friendship between the users of the gymnasion: this appears in graffiti, but also in full‐size statue dedications of ‘private honorific’ statues, as at Eretria (see Chap. 5 for the genre).
In this respect, it is excessive to call the gymnasion a ‘second agora’ of the Hellenistic polis;160 its peculiar nature, as a space restricted to a particular category within the human population of the city, and to particular activities, remained constant: publicity was not the same in the gymnasion as in the two major venues for honorific monuments: the agora and the shrine. There is no document presenting the gymnasion as one of the ‘default’ sites for honorific statues, as there are for the agora and the shrine (above). The dominant note is the honouring of people related to the gymnasion (as well as the non‐honorific adornment of the space and celebration of social relations within the gymnasion walls).
However, the gymnasion, even in the late Hellenistic period when it was open to non‐citizens, was closely linked to the political identity of the city, because the paramilitary activities of the citizen youth manifested the city’s capacity, real or imagined, to defend itself, and because it served as the site for the social reproduction of the city’s values, inculcated to the growing male citizens‐to‐be. In addition, the late Hellenistic period saw the increasing adornment and beautification of the gymnasion, as a display piece of civic architecture in its own right.161 Hence the gymnasion was an appropriate site for manifestations of the honorific exchange with benefactors, from the city on behalf of the users of the gymnasion, and from the latter constituency itself;162 the gymnasion was thus receptive to the increase and changes within honorific practice, for instance the multiplication of statues in the late Hellenistic period. This receptivity (itself favoured by the increasing ornamentation and aestheticization of gymnasion spaces) tended to attenuate any specificity which honorific images might have shown in the space of the gymnasion: whereas the late third‐century statue of the gymnasiarch (p.90) (probably) Sosilos at Delos showed him naked, like other users of the gymnasion (albeit wielding a rod, a symbol of his power), there are later honorific statues in the gymnasion which wear the himation and chiton of the ‘normal’ good citizen.163
The gymnasion certainly operated—if not as the ‘second agora’—at least as one among the repertoire of sites which a city had at its disposal for honorific statues. At Messene, several bases, from their captions, bore the statues of benefactors of the whole city, without any particular indication of service to the gymnasion.164 Other cases suggest that the gymnasion could be chosen as a site for ‘general’ honorific statues, in euergetical transaction with benefactors who were not specifically benefactors of the gymnasion or former gymnasion officials; nonetheless, the choice of the gymnasion was meaningful and must have conveyed nuances in the honorific grammar of space. The city of Amphipolis set up the statue of a Cn. Cornelius Scipio—probably Scipio Corculum rather than Scipio Aemilianus—in the gymnasion: the reason might have been Corculum’s youth, if the context is indeed the capture of the city in 168, as well as the shifting of the martial and honorific‐commemorative culture of the gymnasion onto the person of a powerful, youthful Roman, taking the place that had been occupied by the king in the Antigonid gymnasion.165 When the great benefactor Mithradates son of Menodotos (a friend of Caesar) was honoured by the people of Pergamon with a statue in the gymnasion in return for his very great services, the caption read (with the ‘short honorific’ formula so typical of the period, and of Pergamon in this period, as shown above, Chap. 1):
- ὁ δῆμος ἐτί μησεν
- Μιθραδά την Μηνοδό του τὸ ν διὰ γέ νους ἀ ρχιερέ [ α]
- καὶ ἱ ερέ α τοἐΚαθηγεμό νος Διονύ σου διὰ γέ νο[ υς] ,
- ἀ πο[ κα] τ αστΉσαντα τοῖ ς πατρώιοις θεοῖ ς τ[ Ήν τε πό λιν]
- καὶ [ τὴν] χώραν καὶ γενό μενον τῆς πατρί δος μ[ ετὰ Πέ ργαμον]
- καὶ Φιλέ ταιρον νέ ον κτί στην.
The people has honoured Mithradates son of Menodotos, hereditary high priest and hereditary priest of Dionysios Kathegemon, who restored the city and the territory to the ancestral gods, and who became, after Pergamos and Philetairos, a new founder of the fatherland.166
The gymnasion was chosen as an appropriate setting for the statue of this great benefactor, to inculcate in new citizens the importance of gratitude towards this benefactor (and perhaps echoing the honours for another great benefactor, Diodoros Pasparos). However, at least one other statue for Mithradates was set up in Pergamon, with exactly the same caption;167 the statue in the gymnasion was probably part of a package of several monuments, perhaps in different materials, proclaiming the city’s gratitude towards a super‐benefactor, by ensuring his ubiquity across a range of civic spaces—of which the gymnasion was one, no less meaningful than the agora or the shrine.
d. Theatre and Meeting‐Place
Honorific statues were also set, more rarely, in theatres (and even more rarely, in analogous spaces, such as the stadion or the assembly halls for the demos or the boule: see below). There are a handful of well‐documented cases for the Hellenistic period (Athens, Priene, Messene, Magnesia on Maeander, Delos), though archaeological remains suggest other possible cases (for instance, at the theatre of the Asklepieion at Epidauros or Delphi).168 The earliest example (p.91) is the theatre of Athens (see below), which provides clear examples, starting in the second half of the fourth century, and continuing throughout the Hellenistic period (recently made visible through anastylosis, in my view slightly over‐enthusiastic).169
The theatre building, with its architectural unity, provides clear access ways and converging sightlines. The building was the result of architectural refinements specifically designed to manage and focalize the sightlines of a gathered crowd. These refinements were exploited in siting honorific statues at the resulting ‘visual chokepoints’, namely the parodoi (as at Athens), the intersection between the orchestra and the retaining wall (‘Orchestraecken’),170 the edge of the orchestra, and the stage building itself (as at Priene, where two statue bases still remain in situ, but where there may have been as many as seven such statues: Fig. 3.4).171 The stage building at Delos (Fig. 3.5) also was fronted by three monuments (one a private honorific monument by an Attalid ruler, one a public honorific monument for the pipe‐player Satyros son of Eumenes, and another now nameless).172 Such a development reflects the changing uses of the Hellenistic theatre: the orchestra no longer served the theatrical action, and the audience gave the full focus of its attention to the stage and stage building.173 Furthermore, under the Roman empire, such statues could even be placed in the frons scaenae, as at Messene or Sikyon.174
The crowd gathering was itself political in nature.175 At times, it would be the citizen body itself which met in the theatre to conduct assemblies (the statue for Lucius, the narrator of Apuleius’ Golden Ass, was decreed at Hypata in a meeting in the theatre: above, 53); even during festivals, a large part of the crowd would be citizens, thus making the imagined civic community presently visible, and hence an appropriate audience for the proclamation of honours, of the type studied in Chapter 1. The theatre displayed living benefactors, in the form of the permanent proedria seats at the front of the seating area; occupation of these seats was one of the honours a city could decree. At Priene, as in many other cities, such honours (p.92)
Who was honoured with a statue in the theatre? In many cases, the honorands seem to have a direct link with the theatre: poets (mostly in Athens; one case in Eretria, for an Athenian poet, Menander)178 and performers (for instance the auletes Satyros son of Eumenes, of Samos, honoured at Delos);179 benefactors of the theatre, as in the case of Apollophanes and a relative of his, who lent money to their city, Magnesia on Maeander, to help with construction work on the theatre.180 The statue of Ariobarzanes II of Kappadokia may have been set up in, or near, the theatre of Dionysos in Athens in thanks for his restoration of the Odeion.181 The kitharode Anaxenor, son of Anaxikrates, honoured by his city, Magnesia, with a statue in the theatre, was both a performer, and an important benefactor of the city, through his connection with Mark Antony.182
In other cases, it is not easy to see a direct link. The warlike Philopoimen, the Achaian statesman and general, was honoured by Megalepolis with a statue in the theatre, not because of any relation with drama, but because the theatre was one of the main civic spaces, and the Megalopolitans set up statues of Philopoimen in all of them.183 The two men whose statues stood in the theatre at Priene are not described, on the statue bases, as particular benefactors of the theatre. At Messene, the theatre received statues of athletes and worthies, such as the posthumous Roman‐era portrait of Ti. Flavius…krates, philosopher, new Plato, honoured on account of ‘all his arete’.184 Such statues make it likely that the theatre, like the gymnasion, (p.94) increasingly grew available as a site of high publicity, used as the number and frequency of the honorific monuments in the late Hellenistic and Roman townscape grew. But even two of the earliest known honorands, the poets Diodoros of Sinope and Philippides,185 whose statues were set up in the theatre of Dionysos at Athens, seem to have been honoured primarily for political services rather than for their art: the theatre was a fitting context for their status as poets, but also had a political nature.
As mentioned above, honorific statues were occasionally set up in political meeting‐places, but most examples are late. One Diokles was honoured in the second century (perhaps early in that century) by the city of Kyzikos, for services performed in spite of old age, with an ‘eternal golden crown’ proclaimed yearly at the gymnic contests of the city, and with a bronze statue, set up ‘in the intercolumniation of the council‐house’ (ἐν τῷ μεσοστύ λῳ τοἐβουλευτηρί ου).186 The bouleuterion at Aigai was adorned with an extraordinary array of statues of benefactors, from the late Hellenistic period onwards.187 Much later, the entrance into the ekklesiasterion (meeting hall for the assembly) at Messene was encumbered with a full‐size equestrian statue, set up in the second century AD;188 the small bouleuterion of Teos received honorific statues for local grandees, as did the rather larger bouleuterion at Aphrodisias (where two unpublished second‐century AD private honorific statues perch on the end of the retaining walls). These practices reflect two later developments: the Roman‐era appetite for the expansion of the grammar of the honorific space, and the rise of the council as the dominant institution in the late Hellenistic and Roman polis. Nonetheless, the choice of space is highly significant: it locates the honorific, and the euergetical, in a prominent spot in venues where political activity was conducted; the setting influenced both the nature of political activity (under the sign of euergetical gratitude) and the image of members of the elite, caught in a precise role, that of the citizen fulfilled only by complete communitarian devotion.
e. ‘International’ Shrines
Communities could dedicate honorific portraits outside their own townscapes: in other towns (by asking for a grant of public space by another polis, and hence by subjecting their honorific statue to local management of space, as discussed above) or in ‘shared’ shrines. An obvious example of this practice is the function of ‘federal’ shrines as a venue for honorific monuments. Just as religious life, and hence religious space, allowed civic subdivisions to make their corporate existence visible, in the form of festival activity but also common honorific dedications, so supra‐polis organizations used festivals and common shrines as their ‘public’ spaces. The Confederacy of Athena Ilias set up statues for benefactors, for instance good gymnasiarchs, in the federal shrine.189 The Ionian cities, in the very early third century, honoured a Friend of Lysimachos, Hippostratos, appointed ‘general over the Ionian cities’, with a statue set up in the shrine shared by the Ionians—the Panionion, near Priene (the decree is known from two copies, one from Miletos and one from Smyrna).190 The Koinon of the Chrysaorians (p.95) can be seen to honour a statesman in a fragmentary decree, of unclear date (probably early second century).191
In mainland Greece, the Boiotian League set up honorific statues in its federal shrine of Athena Itonia: a statue of Antiochos III set up there provoked M. Acilius to ravage the territory of Koroneia in reprisal, before realizing that the statue had been set up not by the Koroneians, but the whole federal state of the Boiotians.192 The Phokian Koinon honoured a benefactor, Krinolaos son of Xenopheithes, with a statue in the federal shrine at Hyampolis;193 the Thessalian Koinon may have done the same in their federal shrines, that of Zeus Eleutherios at Larisa and that of Athena Itonia (near the modern village of Mavrachades, some 20km south‐east of Karditsa).194 At Dodona, the Koinon of the Epirotes honoured two officers, Menelaos son of Krison, and Milon son of Sosandros, the latter with an equestrian statue.195 The Delphic Amphiktiony set up honorific statues in the precinct of Apollo at Delphi;196 in the Aitolian‐dominated third century, a series of Chian hieromnemones were honoured with two statues each, one in Chios and one at Delphi.197
Much more rarely, member states of the Amphiktiony could also dedicate statues in the shrine of Apollo. An early example is due to the Thessalians, who honoured Pelopidas with a bronze statue by Lysippos.198 Other cases of constituent states in federal formations setting up honorific statues in the federal shrines show the intention of ensuring publicity for honours, within the federal statues and to the outside world. The Koinon of the Bylliones honoured one Krison son of Sabyrtios (in fact the father of Menelaos, honoured by the Epirotes) with a statue at Dodona, set up next to his son’s: Plan 7), and not, or not only, with a statue ‘at home’.199
Delphi was the setting for honorific statues erected by more bodies than just the Amphiktiony, the city of the Delphians, or members of the Amphiktiony. Communities could decide to set up statues in prestigious shrines outside their territory or their control. Every shrine could receive such dedications. The spectacular monument set up by the Troizenians for Anthas, their compatriot, for services as a statesman and liberator, with an impressive monument at the Amphiaraion of Oropos in Boiotia, did not reflect their membership of the Boiotian League, but the choice of a well‐frequented shrine (and perhaps links of kinship with Oropos, (p.96) which made the choice meaningful for the Troizenians).200 The Asklepieion of Epidauros was adorned with statues set up by ‘the polis of the Epidaurians’, but also the cities of the Phleiasians, the Spartans (four extant bases), the Megarians, and ‘the Koinon of the Asinaians’ in the Argolid (all second century or later).201 The most prestigious, and patronized, shrines were Delphi, Olympia, and Delos. These great pan‐Hellenic shrines have long been excavated and published, illustrating the popularity of such shrines for dedications of honorific monuments (as well as all sorts of other monuments, sculptural and architectural) from cities all across the Hellenistic world.202
The exact details of the positioning of honorific statues in the great pan‐Hellenic shrines reflect the particularities of local topography: in Delphi, the winding road inside the precinct itself, leading up to the temple terrace, with a broader terrace (the sacred space called the ‘Threshing‐floor’, used for marshalling processions) in front of the stoa of the Athenians (Fig. 3.6, Plan 6, with honorific statues marked);203 in Olympia, the tightly enclosed space of the Altis (Plan 5); on Delos, the sprawling urban complex of the sacred island, with a complicated history involving a radical change in status in 167, from free city to Athenian overseas possession undergoing Hong Kong‐style mushrooming expansion (Plan 8).
(p.97) Nonetheless, the positioning of honorific statues in all three shrines shows common traits, shared with other shrines (above); the exploitation of high‐visibility spots along access routes, alignment along stoas, clustering around the focal points of altar and temple, or secondary monuments—as analysed above for the Samian Heraion or the Asklepieion near Epidauros (which also were, to a certain extent, ‘international’ shrines). At Olympia, honorific statues are found around the temple of Zeus and along the path linking the temple to the ash altar (here honorific statues mingled with athletic statues and votives, some of great size); in front of the east stoa (‘Echohalle’) where their alignment responds to the façades of the stoa and the ‘Southeastern building’, as well as the alignment of the treasuries and the Zanes (statues set up by competitors convicted of cheating) to which they build a right angle; and along a route coming from the west, turning north along the Leonidaion, then east, along the early wall on the south side of the Altis—a row of thirteen honorific equestrian statues (starting in the later Hellenistic period, and probably for Roman officials) lines the southern side of this route, and prolongs a monumental row already constituted by earlier monuments, the bouleuterion, and the base of the Apolloniatai; this route finally joins the path from the altar of Zeus to the temple of Zeus. A few minor clusters of statues surrounded the multiple entrances into the sacred precinct.204
The difference from a ‘normal’ civic shrine is the wider audience reached by the honorific gesture made away from the home polis, in a site full of visitors, pilgrims, sacred ambassadors, a nodal point in the networks of the Hellenistic world. At Delphi, the equestrian statue of Philopoimen, set up by the Achaians on a highly visible site and turned towards the ‘Sacred Way’, greeted countless visitors, year after year, as they ascended towards the temple.205 It is true that the catchment area of the great shrines was influenced by geography. Communities from the Peloponnese set up statues in Olympia (and Epidauros): the Achaian soldiers sent as allies to fight against the Galatians (the Boii) with Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus in 192 set up an equestrian statue of their officer, Damon son of Alkisthenes, of Patrai.206 Central and Northern Greece is well represented at Delphi (where the city of Lilaia honoured a liberator, Patron, with a statue and an epigram).207 As for Delos, the statues set up there represent communities from the islands, but also the seaborne contacts between West and East: the envoys of the Prostaennoi Pisidai, from a community in Southern Anatolia, must have set up the statue which the city decreed in honour of M. Antonius during a stopover at Delos on a journey to or from Rome.208 But the three pan‐Hellenic shrines attracted the presence of dedicants from just about everywhere, and a dedication there took on the force of a statement about the relations between the dedicator, the shrine, and the wider Greek world. It contextualized a particular honorific transaction within a broader history, given concrete form by the experience of the architecture, the sightlines, the dedications left by past generations; the statue remained, left behind by its dedicators, as a monumental ‘ideal spectator’ participating in the monumental landscape, but also the regular religious and competitive rituals in the shrine.209 The statue of Patron of Lilaia heightened a specific, rather local event, and set it among a narrative of Greek deeds, and even Greek freedom. The equestrian monument of Kallikrates, set up at Olympia by (p.98) the Spartan exiles upon their return, proclaimed their gratitude, but also their success and their story to a pan‐Hellenic audience. The statue of M. Antonius, set up by a Pisidian city, allowed the latter to gain presence in an haut‐lieu of Greekness, among celebrated works of art and a monumental landscape of high antiquity.
4. Priene, Pergamon, Athens
Agora, shrine, gymnasion, theatre: these main sites for honorific statues have been illustrated above by (perhaps too) many examples, constructing an ideal cityscape. Actual individual cases show variation, the influence of local conditions and histories: their interest is hence not just in illustrating the general principles, but also in shedding light on the choices made by actors within the vocabulary of space. Three cases are of particular interest: Priene, Pergamon, and Athens, because of the fullness of the evidence, the historical circumstances of each, and the diversity between the three communities; they show the validity and significance, as well as (and through) the implementation of the general principles sketched above.
a. Honorific Portraits: Where in Priene?
In Hellenistic Priene,210 public honorific statues were to be seen in at least six settings: the agora, the shrine of Athena, the theatre, the shrine of Demeter, and the two gymnasia; in addition, statues may have stood in two further shrines, the shrine of Asklepios and the shrine of the Egyptian gods; finally, the Panionion, a shrine shared by the Ionian cities, stood in its territory and may have been used for honorific monuments by the Ionians (above, 94). The main venue was undoubtedly, in Priene as in probably all Hellenistic cities, the agora. At Priene, in its late Hellenistic phase, the agora (Plan 13) shows a profusion of monuments, attested mostly through around sixty bases and foundations.211 The majority of bases concentrated in the southern half of the agora, specifically in the form of a ‘main series’, 9m to the south of the east–west street, aligned with the northern end of the shrine east of the agora (Asklepios or Zeus), with most facing on to the street; others, added later, on the west side, facing southwards into the open square. In effect, the statues define a northern part of the agora, constituted by the walkway in front of the Sacred Stoa and the 9m wide strip south of the ‘West Gate Street’, and a southern part, limited not only by three stoas, but also by a fourth wall to the north, made up of statues. A few bases line the west stoa in the southern part of the agora; the east stoa is lined with two rows of statues, one somehow connected at right angles with the ‘great row’, a second set up close to the stoa; a large, multi‐statue base is set at either edge of the space in front of the northern stoa. The open space of the southern part is occupied by a few large, rectangular foundations; one of these, exactly centred between the three stoas and the West Gate Street, is probably a monumental altar.
Since the majority of monuments are attested only through the foundations, there is no clear chronological sequence. The bases in the southern open space could be monumental cult‐statues, and the well‐constructed equestrian bases before the West stoa probably belonged to the early Hellenistic statues of Larichos and other benefactors;212 the few statue bases in the (p.99) north are later Hellenistic, and were installed after the remodelling of this part of the agora through the building of the northern stoa. In spite of the paucity of information, a number of features appear clearly. First, the statue bases show the attraction of the western intersection (whereas the eastern end, although marked by a monumental gate, is largely statue‐free).213 Secondly, the final state of the agora shows the importance of statues in shaping public space, and movement and experience within this space; it is striking that most of the bases in the western intersection and the row of statues south of the West Gate Street are exedras with benches for passersby to sit on, in cool marble shadow, under the statues and looking out on the passage in the street that crosses the agora. The constitution of this remarkable row of statues, after an earlier phase when statues had aligned the central space, parallel to the stoas, also hints at a complicated social history, involving social actors, collective and individual, within space. How did this space come to look the way it finally did? I attempt a sketch of a social history of space in the agora of Priene in the next chapter. For now, it is enough to note that soundings beneath the Sacred Stoa have revealed the foundation of one statue base, in front of an earlier stoa: building the Sacred Stoa involved moving at least one and probably several honorific statues on the now nearly statue‐free northern side of the square.
Thirdly, the civic nature of this space appears clearly defined by architecture, but also by honorific inscriptions, images, and rituals: abbreviated decrees on the columns of the stoas in the southern half, the archive wall in the northern stoa, honorific statues and painted portraits, and the proclamation of crowns in the agora;214 in Priene, the agora was the most normal site for public honorific statues. ‘Die Fülle der Ehrenbilder muss fast erdrückend gewesen sein’ (‘the profusion of honorific images must have been almost oppressive’).215
The other main venue for honorific statues in Hellenistic Priene was the shrine of Athena, dominated by the great and beautiful temple building (Plan 14).216 Two early honorific statues for important figures have been mentioned above (22, 81–2): a marble statue of Ada, probably set up in the temple itself; a bronze statue of the Megabyxos, set up aligned with one of the antas, as is known from an honorific decree (the base itself has been found, but not in situ).217 The statues of Seleukos I and Antiochos I mentioned in the decree for Larichos were probably set up in the shrine of Athena (since a second decree decided to move the statue of Larichos to another venue—the agora).218 A small number of bases for honorific statues have been found in the area of the shrine (again not in situ).219 From remaining foundations, it is clear that two areas were used for statues. First, a long row (16 bases) runs south of the temple and the propylon, on the southern side of the shrine terrace. Some of these bases are older than the southern (and southwards looking) stoa, dating to the mid‐second century; the back wall of this stoa also helped define the row as it continued being set up.
Second, a row of bases occupies the western wall of the ‘north‐east extension’ to the temenos, along a space in front of a distyle in antis building (a temple?); a few bases are scattered within this space. Four bases were particularly prominent: they took the form of rectangular pilasters, of considerable height (13m or so), thus matching the height of the temple, whose ornament it echoed. These bases may have borne honorific statues, though there are no surviving inscriptions from the shafts of the pilasters.
The other sites for statues are the shrine of Demeter, in front of whose entrance three statues of priestesses were set up on a tiny esplanade formed between two terrace walls, one to the side, two in front of either door jamb of the entrance, narrowing the actual thoroughfare, and (p.100)
The shrine of Athena appears first in the surviving record as the setting for an honorific statue; the earliest honorific monument attested in the agora is the equestrian statue for Larichos, decreed in c.280. Though the history of the agora is not yet completely established, it is clear that the agora became the main site for honorific monuments, set up by the demos (almost certainly), civic subdivisions, and private individuals (see below, Chap. 6) during the Hellenistic period, before the reorganization of the agora in the late second century; the agora and the shrine of Athena constitute the monumental heart of the city, where the Prienians chose to concentrate their honorific statues and display themselves as a civic community endowed with good citizens and the wherewithal to inspire and reward them. Within the limited space available, the theatre also shows concentrations of honorific monuments, as befitted a space where citizens met formally in political assembly and civic rituals. The gymnasion, and the various shrines within the city, remained marginal sites for the honorific. In other (p.101) words, the Prienian honorific statuescape was intensely civic, in the choices made within the grammar of spaces, to emphasize the communitarian spaces of identity.
b. Honorific Portraits: Where in Pergamon?
In Pergamon (Plan 10), the placing of honorific portraits was shaped by the city’s status as royal capital; this influenced practice subsequent to the disappearance of the Attalid monarchy and the emergence of the ‘democratic city’, with its late Hellenistic elites occupying the vacuum left by the dynasty.227 As with any Hellenistic city, there were statues in the agora—except that the cities had two agoras. In the Lower Agora (dating to the expansion of the city under Eumenes II, say in the 170s or 160s), bases for statues have been detected in front of the northern and west stoas; these may have supported honorific monuments in this public space.228 The older Upper Agora was certainly used early on for the display of epigraphy (the stele bearing documents honouring the strategoi of the city under Eumenes I was set up there);229 later on, after reshaping by Eumenes II, it received several honorific statues, one (probably) on the large foundation south of the temple, a series (probably) on a long base next to the altars230 and one of the statues decreed by the Pergamenes for Attalos III, a gilt‐bronze equestrian statue on a marble pillar near the altar of Zeus Soter.231 A few more bases might come from this space.232
The statuescape of Hellenistic Pergamon concentrated on the royal and monumental heart of the city, on top of the citadel hill. The shrine of Athena was the setting for dedications by the Attalid rulers, which were military in nature, but also for honorific statues, of the kings233 and of members of the Pergamene elite families, namely priestesses of Athena Polias;234 in 149 BC, the priestess Metris was honoured with a statue set up in this shrine, as stipulated in the decree carved on her statue base (which was found reused).235 This practice continued after the end of the monarchy, in honour of the great civic politicians and benefactors of the city.236 The evidence is mostly epigraphical (many of the statue bases were found reused in later fortifications), though some traces of foundations were noted; these are not sufficient to reconstruct the statuescape of the shrine.237 There may have been honorific statues in the terrace immediately below the shrine of Athena, but the bases found there may come from the shrine. The terrace of the ‘Great Altar’ also served as a space for honorific statues, again of priestesses,238 and (p.102)
Further down the hill, honorific statues were found in the shrine of Hera—indeed, inside the very temple, where a statue of Attalos II may have stood, and a statue of the Galatian princess Adobogiona was added on, in the first century, to the existing statue podium in the back of the cella (Fig. 3.8).242 The oblong shrine of Demeter, to the west, was also adorned with honorific statues, mostly of priestesses—first in the western half of the sacred space, in front of the portico north of the temple, later in front of the rows of seating in the eastern half.243 Finally, the great gymnasion complex (Plan 11) was the setting for honorific statues for the Attalid rulers, for gymnasiarchs, and for benefactors such as Diodoros Pasparos. Many of these statues occupied the Upper Gymnasion, but there may have been other spots, for instance north of the temple in the Middle Gymnasion, or in the niches along the retaining wall that forms the backdrop to the narrow Lower Gymnasion.244
(p.103) Further still came the Lower Agora; and outside of the city, the shrine of Asklepios, which was also used for statues during the Attalid period—Attalos III, in addition to his statue in the Upper Agora, had a statue set up in this shrine; later on during the Roman empire it grew in popularity.245
During the Hellenistic period, the distribution of honorific statues in Pergamon reflected the concentration of monumental expression on the Upper City, fostered by the Attalid dynasty: the shrine of Athena and, slightly later, the gymnasion complex were the main sites for honorific statues. Honorific monuments were largely reserved to members of the royal family, with the addition of Pergamene citizen women serving the cult of the patron deity of the dynasty. Such monuments were concentrated in the magnificent fortified heart of the Attalid state, with other monuments of the dynasty—the victory monuments, the palaces, and, indeed, the display architecture of the shrine of Athena and the Great Altar. This inflexion, determined by the function of Pergamon as the centre of the royal state, was preserved during the post‐Attalid period: the shrine of Athena (with the addition of the esplanade of the Great Altar) and the gymnasia remained the favoured—most prestigious, most meaningful—spots for honorific statues. Concomitantly, both agoras seem to have remained relatively underprivileged; the theatre does not seem to have functioned as an honorific spot at all.246 The honorific statuescape of Pergamon has a particular shape when compared to the ‘normal’ scheme (where the agora acts as a city’s main representational space, and which I illustrated with the case of Priene); this shape reflects the city’s history, but also the attachment of the post‐Attalid civic elites to the monumental spaces that embodied this history—or perhaps simply their desire to exploit the prominence ensured by the Attalid monuments to grant civic monuments maximum publicity.
c. Honorific Portraits: Where in Athens?
In Hellenistic Athens,247 honorific portraits were found across a complex townscape—in the agora (one of the main sites), on the Akropolis (the other main site), in the gymnasia, in various public buildings, in various urban shrines, in a few demes: Peiraieus, Rhamnous, Eleusis (the site of a great shrine of its own). But the case of Athens is particularly rich, and important. The city was one of the contexts where the honorific statue habit was forged, from the fourth century onwards; at the same time, it kept various particularities and idiosyncrasies. In addition, the historical record is extremely complete when compared with other Hellenistic communities, which invites us to think about statues and honours in the changing contexts of Hellenistic Athens; the historical record is replete with extremely rich evidence, epigraphical, archaeological, and literary, especially in the form of Pausanias’ description of Athens town.
(p.104) A survey of the sites mentioned above, as we may imagine them at the very end of the Hellenistic period (just before the Augustan age and the subsequent impact of Julio‐Claudian monarchy) might illustrate some of the specificities of the Athenian test case, as well as general principles governing the construction and use of epiphanestatoi topoi in the Hellenistic townscape. Such a survey, necessarily synchronic in form, raises diachronic questions of historical evolution.
In the agora,248 the most visible spot is occupied by the Tyrannicides, probably somewhere in the northern third of the public space; next to it, at various points in time, there have been honorific statues of exceptional importance: Antigonos and Demetrios, the ‘Saviours’; at the other end of the Hellenistic period, the ‘Liberators’, Brutus and Cassius.249 In both cases, the Hellenistic honorific statues exploited the meanings of the Classical monument (see below, 118). Honorific statues are to be found on the east side of the agora, near the public buildings, in a row leading up to the acute angle that forms the northern top of the agora: the statues of Lykourgos and Demosthenes (120), close to the statue of Eirene and Ploutos,250 and the portrait of Kallias of Sphettos, are to be found here. The oldest statues are in a distinct group: those of Konon, Timotheos, and Evagoras, between the wings of the stoa of Zeus Eleutherios. A row of honorific statues also stands in front of the Stoa Poikile, to the north of the agora. There are also honorific statues along the Panathenaic Way—perhaps statues of Romans, perhaps earlier statues of Hellenistic kings.251 The terrace wall of the Stoa of Attalos serves as a backdrop for honorific statues: a great quadriga‐monument for Attalos II, statues of Romans on columnar bases.252 The most dominant monuments are those for Attalid kings; but there is also a profusion of smaller honorific portraits, painted on wood (sometimes on gilt round panels, called ‘shields’: below, 254), dedicated by corporate bodies such as the ephebes (honouring their kosmetes) or the prytaneis (honouring their treasurer), in the Stoa of Attalos or in the bouleuterion;253 a single statue monument, perhaps honorific, stands in the small square south of the bouleuterion.254 The honorific statues are a very dominant presence; they share the space of the agora with votive offerings, cult‐statues, and historical statues of past glories (Solon, Pindar); the latter have been reinterpreted by the late Hellenistic viewers as honorific statues, a good sign of the powerful presence of this genre in the agora.
The dromos, the stoa‐lined road from the Kerameikos, is lined with statues of men and women (Paus. 1.2.4), probably late Hellenistic (as perhaps implied by the profusion of female statues, not all of which can have been priestesses; rather benefactresses or female relatives of benefactors). Just before the dromos joins the agora, on the south side of the road, the shrine of Demos and the Charites contains some honorific statues, along with stelai bearing decrees for foreign benefactors; the statue of Eumaridas of Kydonia is set up here (above, 56–7). This shrine was conceived as an honorific space for foreigners, though it did not catch on quite as much as its sponsors, the late third‐century politicians Mikion and Eurykleides, had hoped; the building of a stoa has also cut off the shrine’s visibility and made it something of a cul de sac.255 (p.105) The City Eleusinion, to the south of the Agora, probably contains some honorific statues, at various points within the shrine precinct, and perhaps also to the north of the precinct;256 many of these are private honorific monuments, dating from the fourth century BC onwards; others are the ubiquitous painted portraits set up by the prytaneis or the ephebes.257
The Akropolis,258 though a highly politicized space filled with public dedications and public epigraphy, is adorned with honorific statues for only a few great men of the early and high Hellenistic age, such as the general Olympiodoros, liberator of the city in 286 (the exact siting of these monuments is not clear; on Olympidoros, below, 273–6). Most of the monuments come from periods later than the early or even the high Hellenistic period. Like the agora, it has received spectacular monuments (probably honorific rather than agonistic) for members of the Attalid dynasty, at the immediate entrance of the shrine, and within it: pillars topped with colossal bronze equestrian statues or chariot groups.259 Less spectacular, but much, much more numerous, are the honorific statues for lesser benefactors, Athenians or non‐Athenians, and especially for Romans, or for client kings. Some of these statues are reused Classical monuments.260 There are also many statues set up by families for daughters who have fulfilled sacred functions.
On the south slope of the Akropolis rock, the theatre of Dionysos261 (Plan 2) and the Odeion are the site for portraits of two types: some honour dramatic poets (such as the three great tragedians, Aiskhylos, Sophokles, and Euripides (statuefied at the initiative of Lykourgos); Menander;262 perhaps Diodoros of Sinope, Philippides;263 some honour statesmen (such (p.106) as Eteokles),264 or benefactors (such as king Ariobarzanes, who helped rebuild the Odeion: above, 93). In the theatre, the statues are lined, with other dedications, along the parodoi, and atop the analemmata: a seated statue of Astydamas was set up atop the west analemma, as the cuttings on the surviving half of the base show.265 To the west of the theatre, immediately below the cliff face, honorific portraits, private and public (the prytaneis again), adorn the Asklepieion: they probably share the space to the west of the temple with other votive offerings. On the other side of the Akropolis, the gymnasion named ‘Ptolemaion’ is the setting for honorific statues, and painted portraits (Paus. 1.17.2).266 The prytaneion (located north‐east of the Akropolis, and not to be confused with the Tholos on the agora) is also adorned with honorific portraits, starting with one of the early Hellenistic general Olympiodoros (Paus. 1.26.3); many statues may have been moved there at some point, presumably in the late Hellenistic or even Roman period.267
Outside the town itself, there are some honorific portraits in demes, but the gradual decline in deme life means that most such images are found in a few, prosperous settings: the Peiraieus and the emporion;268 Rhamnous with its soldiers;269 Eleusis, where monuments throng the sacred court.270 Eleusis deserves closer attention, because of the evolution in the origin of the honorific monuments. The soldiers stationed in the Attic forts set up bronze statues in the third century, and statues decreed by the people seem only to have appeared in the very late Hellenistic period (first century); this distribution must reflect the unsuitability of the shrine, open only to initiates, as a site for publicity271—and increased interest and activity in the shrine in the first century.
This picture is the result of a history of honorific statues in Athens; a history which mirrors its political history, with particularities due to the combination of civic pride and repeated subordination. After the fourth century, and the rising importance of statues, especially in the Agora and especially for generals, there is an important statue moment in the early Hellenistic period, followed by a period of abatement in the third century. The pace quickens again after 229, with the liberation of the city, and honorific decrees illustrate the liveliness of the honorific statue habit in the late third and especially early second century BC. The Attalids are honoured with ‘super‐monuments’, huge in size and extraordinarily prominent; these monuments also allude to and echo each other. In the late Hellenistic period, public decrees of the Athenian demos attesting honorific statues are not known; but the surviving mass of statue bases clearly shows the amplification, and normalization, of the honorific statue habit. Statues for Roman officials become frequent. After the catastrophe of the city’s capture in 88, a particularity is the proliferation of painted honorific portraits by civic bodies—set up in a variety of micro‐sites (p.107) within the townscape: specific shrines, bits of the agora, particular buildings. Within this history, three spots stand out: the agora, the Akropolis, the theatre of Dionysos, probably with differentiation between the three, though the exact nuances of the increase of honorific statues in the Akropolis in the late Hellenistic period, or the distribution of statues in the theatre, still escape us.
5. Spatial Dynamics: The Civic Shrine
The shrine, obviously one of the main canonical sites for honorific statues, could also function in ways that responded to specific dynamics. In the early second century BC, the citizens of Magnesia on Maeander honoured Euphemos, son of Pausanias, the neokoros of Artemis, with a statue in the shrine of the hero Anax.272 The modern findspot (in what would have been in ancient times the territory of Priene or Samos) cannot be the original site of the shrine, but suggests that the shrine lay in Mt Mykale or Thorax. This was a rural shrine, on the margins of the territory—hardly an epiphanestatos topos, or a site to ensure maximal publicity. Why this honorific monument in the countryside, rather than in the urban centre of Magnesia? The choice was explicitly motivated by Euphemos’ piety towards the ‘sacred house’ of the hero, and hence comparable to other examples of the relevance of statue to services, mentioned above. But it may also have had other aims, precisely because the shrine was marginal and perhaps little frequented (for instance, only during festivals): leaving a mark of Magnesian presence on the edges of the territory, in the form of a public gesture in honour of a prominent citizen. The honorific statue performs the same role as other types of public dedication or ritual gestures in the territory of a polis. As always, it is too simple to see this particular case merely as a reflection of elite dominance. The services by Euphemos, passing of a decree in a mass meeting, inscription of the decree, and setting up of a statue in the peripheral shrine—all of these social transactions made visible Magnesian control of the shrine, and helped Magnesians imagine and construct their territory. When they met in this rural shrine on the edge of their territory, the honorific statue, the material embodiment of the euergetical contract that held their community together, the operation of the monument in achieving publicity in the context of the civic festival—all these things acted as reminders of who they were.
Another example of specific pressures and the dynamics of statue exposition, between town, territory, and shrine is found at Eretria. The shrine of Artemis Amarysia, where some honorific statues were set up by the Eretrians (above, 86), is located some 10km away from the urban settlement of Eretria; however, it may have acted as the centre of the large Eretrian territory, which expanded considerably from the fourth century onwards, leaving the town on the western margin. The shrine (though not in the actual, physical centre of the Eretrias) lies on the intersection of the coastal axis, between the town and the former territories of Dystos, Zarax, and Styra (taken over by Eretria), and the north–south axis, between the two coasts of Euboia.273 In addition, the shrine was the scene of a festival, the Artemisia, which may have gathered citizens from the whole territory, and indeed from all of Euboia. Honorific statues in the shrine of Artemis can be seen as being designed for a Euboian audience generally, and specifically for the citizens of Eretria. The shrine also served for the publication of important laws and decrees, concerning the citizen body—for instance, the early Hellenistic law against tyranny, as well as documents concerning relations between Eretria and other cities of Euboia.274
In contrast, as discussed earlier (24–5), the Delphians, when honouring Aiskhylos son of Antandrides, a hieromnemon from Eretria (and local politician), set up his statue in the town, (p.108) where the statue base was found on the site of the agora.275 The choice of site may have been in response to a specific request by the Delphians, and hence reflect the Delphians’ idea of appropriateness. Nonetheless, the use of the agora for a statue set up by a foreign community contrasts with the locally decreed honorific portraits in the shrine of Artemis at Amarynthos. The contrast highlights the different audiences and effects of setting up statues in different locales—the monumental civic space of the town for diplomatic gestures and relations with other communities, the shrine in the centre of the polis territory for honouring good citizens and members of the civic elite. Likewise, documents concerning the citizens’ internal life were inscribed in the shrine of Artemis Amarysia, but proxenies, honouring foreigners, were inscribed in the shrine of Apollo Daphnephoros, in the town. A parallel can be found in the behaviour of a subdivision of the citizen body of Mylasa, in Karia. The Otorkondeis set up an honorific portrait in the shrine of Zeus Osogo, a shrine of the wider city of Mylasa, rather than their own shrine of Zeus of the Otorkondeis where they usually had their honorific decrees inscribed: the aim was not local commemoration, but the publicity of the unusual honour of the honorific portrait.276
One factor for the various choices between shrine and agora may be the evolution of the general historical context. At Eretria, the statue set up by the Delphians dates to the early third century; the statues in the shrine of Artemis at Amarynthos are second‐century.277 The difference may reflect changes in the political culture of Eretria, or an evolution in the relations between the different actors (town, elites, citizens across the territory), or a shift in fashion, or emulation between members of the elite, or even practicalities such as the availability of space in different venues. It is impossible to be sure, in the absence of a complete record of honorific statues from the agora: the lack of evidence is due not only to the scanty excavation, but also to the very thorough destruction of the city’s monumental cover in 86 BC.
Beyond their differences, the cases of Magnesia, Eretria, and the Otorkondeis offer insight into the way in which choice of site reflects needs, and produces meanings. Meaningful choice happens among the various resources available: space is also grammar. The exact meanings are not always clear. The multiplicity of reasons and meanings may be integral to the way in which the grammar of civic space functions, and may, indeed, be part of its attraction.
6. Spatial Dynamics: The Epidaurian Asklepieion
The multiple pressures on space, and the resulting impact on experience, can be seen clearly at the Asklepieion of Epidauros (Plan 4).278 According to G. Roux and R. Tomlinson, the first honorific portrait encountered was a huge equestrian statue, visible as soon as the road heading south from the propylaia cleared the crest to reach the plateau where the shrine’s main buildings were located. The equestrian statue would have been placed immediately against a small temple, probably that of Aphrodite: the site, the proximity of the temple, and the isolation of the statue would doubtless have made the spot an epiphanestatos topos.279 The dimensions of foundations give pause: 5.94m long, 2.50m across. Kavvadias had identifed this as an altar, but (p.109) the location is unsuitable; hence Roux’s ‘colossal equestrian statue’. But the dimensions are unparalleled and unlikely to be those of an equestrian monument. The exact nature of the monument must remain unclear: a monumental (non‐honorific) votive? I suggest that the foundation marks the site of a small chapel to Themis, which would explain what seems to be a mention of a ‘shrine of Aphrodite and Themis’ in Pausanias.
All the bases for honorific statues (securely identifiable as such) are coherently organized across the shrine. The row of six exedras, cutting across the central open space, are indubitably from honorific monuments (even though they have been reused, and hence the exact nature and original date are confused: see further Chap. 4). The exedras trace lines of circulation within this space, and specifically allow us to follow a looping path, branching off the straight north–south road from the propylaia, and leading to a Y‐division of ways just south of the fifth exedra, where there is a gap before the next exedra. One path continued eastwards, along the esplanade of the north stoa (probably the stoa of Kotys mentioned by Pausanias), two fountains, and the shrine of the Epidotes—all facing southwards, onto the path.280 The other path continued due south, aligned with the altar of Asklepios.
The east–west axis between the altar and the temple was lined with statues, on the north face of ‘building E’; they defined the southern edge of the central space. The front of the temple itself was thickly occupied by statues, on either side of the ramp leading into the building. Further statues lined the south side of the temple, along the path which led to the Tholos; a few statues stood on the southern edge of this space. There are no statue bases on the north side of the temple, in the narrow space between the temple and the Abaton, the portico where pilgrims could spend the night in ritual and healing sleep. Nor are there statues in front of the Abaton or its addition, in the parts which extended to the west of the temple: this space, to the rear of the temple and in front of the sleeping hall, was kept uncluttered, since it was used for healing rituals. The entrance ramp of the Tholos was flanked by statues, looking east. The statue bases now located to the north of the modern path between the temple and the theatre, across from the north side of ‘building E’, are not in situ (this includes an important statue, that of Antigonos Gonatas, set up by the Epidaurians).281 Finally, there are remains of a few bases, perhaps for statues (but in some cases clearly for dedications) by the small temple of Artemis.
The remains of honorific monuments allow us to reconstruct circulation, from the propylaia to the Tholos; to imagine a pilgrim, viewing the shrine, branching off to the fountains, retracing his steps to the Y‐intersection and moving towards the altar, attending sacrifice, visiting the Tholos, where famous, virtuoso paintings were dedicated. Statues also constructed spaces: the inner ring‐path defined by the exedras, within the broader, rectangular space of the north–south road and the stoa of Kotys; the esplanade between the temple and the altar; the piazza in front of the Tholos. Movement within the shrine might have been experienced as transition from one space to another. More generally, the statues shaped experience in this shrine (Fig. 3.3), just as honorific statues constructed the meanings of the agoras of the cities: by the late second century BC, the scale and adornment of monumental architecture were preceded, wherever the visitor looked, by the immediacy of the ‘forest of statues’, whose impact it is perhaps easy to underestimate, and which should not be erased from our picture (as on the modern plans exhibited at the site of the Asklepieion). The profusion of statues, and their participation in the construction of sanctuary space, makes it difficult to identify any single epiphanestatos topos.
7. From Spatial Grammar to Spatial Discourses
The case of the Epidaurian Asklepieion, or the surveys of cityscapes such as Priene—dissected, then quickly reassembled in our gaze—are exercises in mapping out statues on to landscapes; (p.110) they move from the catalogue of different types or examples of Aufstellungsort to a realization that honorific statues are, in turn, a form of mapping of polis space, urban and rural. The impact of this mapping is political: the presence, in physical, monumental, undeniable form, of the outcome of civic narratives of exchange and communitarian devotion, across a whole range of spaces; the equation and subsuming of these spaces, profane and sacred, within an overarching model of public space, under the control of the community in institutionalized forms. Honorific statues recognized, but also enacted, this public control over public space.
And yet, the move from a typology of sites to a grammar and a syntax of spaces also leads to the study of social space as discourse (to continue the, perhaps increasingly unsatisfactory, linguistic metaphor that was proposed heuristically at the start of this chapter). Choices took place within the various meaningful epiphanestatoi topoi of the polis landscape; looking at lived‐in test cases, or examples of dynamics of work, raises the question of agency: did those who made these choices only wish to comply with the controlled narratives imposed by the city? In the following chapter, I wish to look beyond these narratives to the possibility for competition within civic space. This will lead to an ‘ecological’ approach to the epiphanestatoi topoi and the actors within them: statues, dedicators, audiences—‘ecology’ is a further metaphor, developed extensively to help understand historical processes in the evolution of the post‐Classical polis—and a revision of what we can mean by ‘the civic’.
The attribution of this statue to 340 BC in insecure, and the sources problematic.282 The first is a polemical anti‐Athenian sentiment in Diogenes Laertius, 2.5.43; from the construction of the sentence, it is not at all clear that the information that the Athenians set up a statue of Astydamas before one of Aiskhylos should be attributed to Herakleides Pontikos (fr. 169 Wehrli; but why not Herakleides Lembos?), rather than to Diogenes Laertius himself. The second source is an anecdote concerning a boastful epigram supposedly written by Astydamas for his publicly decreed statue in the theatre voted to him, and rejected by the boule, whence a jeering reference in Philemon (fr. 190 Kock); the comic line is the peg for the anecdote and the epigram, as quoted, e.g. in Photius 502.21 or Suda s.v. σαὐτΉν—the source is the Atticist lexicographer Pausanias; H. Erbse, Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika (Berlin, 1950), 208 σ 6. This sort of pseudo‐biographical information is notoriously unreliable, as shown by M. Lefkowitz, The Lives of the Greek Poets (London, 1981).
The consequence is that the statue of Astydamas cannot be dated unproblematically to 340 BC, before the statues of the three tragedians and the statue of Menander; it might have been set up after them. The question should be left open.
(1) P. Fraisse, ‘Analyse d’espaces urbains: les ‘places’ à Délos’, BCH 107 (1983), 301–13.
(2) On Aphrodisias, Smith, Roman Portrait Statues from Aphrodisias. The case of the Hellenistic cities is hardly unique in the archaeological record: the forum of Pompeii is also difficult to read, because of the loss of the inscriptions on the statue bases in the earthquake of AD 63: A. Mau, ‘Die Statuen des Forums von Pompeji’, RömMitt 11 (1896), 150–6.
(3) The case was highlighted in an exhibition organized by the French government in Strasbourg in Oct. 2008 (‘Archéologie et changement climatique: un patrimoine menacé’). My visit to the agora in early summer 2005 took place in water-logged conditions (I fell gravely ill over the next few days, but am still grateful to Julien Fournier for welcoming me on Thasos and showing me around the ancient city-site).
(4) IG 42 1 locates none of the statue bases; Peek’s subsequent corrections make clear that he saw many of the stones, but he does not provide a map; S. von Thüngen, Die freistehende griechische Exedra (Mainz, 1994) helps locate many exedras, and points out cases of Roman reuse of Hellenistic exedras (though the exedras are organized typologically throughout her book). Adjacent monuments: IG 421.654–5, 647–9 (third exedra from the west, von Thüngen, Exedra, no. 30, and the large base next to it, north of building E).
(5) R. Étienne and P. Varène, Sanctuaire de Claros, l’architecture (Paris 2004); J.-L. Ferrary and S. Verger, ‘Contribution à l’histoire du sanctuaire de Claros à la fin du Ile et au Ier siècle av. J.-C.: L’Apport des inscriptions en l’honeur des Romains et des fouilles de 1994–1997’, CRAI (1999), 811–50; Ferrary, ‘Les Inscriptions du sanctuaire de Claros’.
(6) The ongoing work by Christina Leypold will clarify the relation and chronological sequences of the honorific monument bases in the Altis; some of this work was presented in a workshop at Munich in Dec. 2009 (‘Polis und Porträt’).
(8) L’Histoire, 207 (Feb. 1997); P. Rainbird, ‘Representing Nation, Dividing Community: The Broken Hill War Memorial, New South Wales, Australia’, World Archaeology, 35/1 (June 2003): The Social Commemoration of Warfare, 22–34.
(9) P. G. Themelis, Heroes at Ancient Messene (Athens, 2003); ‘Die Ägora von Messene’, in H. Frielinghaus and J. Stroszeck (eds), Neue Forschungen zu griechischen Städten und Heiligtümern (Möhneberg, 2011), 105–25.
(10) Generally, B. S. Ridgway, ‘The Setting of Greek Sculpture’, Hesperia, 40 (1971), 336–56; earlier, E. Kuhnert, ‘Statue und Ort in ihrem Verhältnis bei den Griechen’, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, suppl. 14 (1885), 245–338; also K. Stemmer (ed.), Standorte: Kontext und Funktion antiker Skulptur (Berlin, 1995). On Archaic and Classical urbanism, see the survey by G. Shipley, ‘Little Boxes on the Hillside: Greek Town Planning, Hippodamos, and Polis Ideology’, in M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Imaginary Polis (Copenhagen, 2005), 335–403. For a parallel, G. Zimmer, Locus Datus Decreto Decurionum (Munich, 1989), on the fora of Djemila and Timgad.
(11) Aristotle, Politics 1260b40–1.
(12) D. M. Lewis, ‘Public Property in the City’, in O. Murray and S. R. F. Price (eds), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander (Oxford, 1990), 245–64; J.-M. Bertrand, Cités et royaumes du monde grec (Paris, 1992); M. H. Hansen and T. Fischer-Hansen, ‘Monumental Political Architecture in Archaic and Classical Greek Poleis: Evidence and Historical Significance’, in D. Whitehead (ed.), From Political Architecture to Stephanus Byzantius: Sources for the Ancient Greek Polis. Historia Einzelschrift, 87 (Stuttgart, 1994), 23–90; M. H. Hansen, ‘The Polis as an Urban Centre: The Literary and Epigraphical Evidence’, in Hansen, The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community (Copenhagen, 1997), 9–86.
(13) Dreros: H. van Effenterre and C. Tiré, Guide des Fouilles françaises en Crète (Paris, 1978), 93–6; Naxos: V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Thé Emergence of the City-State of Naxos in the Aegean’, in M. C. Lentini, Le due citttà di Naxos (Giardini Naxos, 2004), 61–74; C. Bérard, L’Hérôon à la porte de l’Ouest. Eretria, 3 (Berne, 1970); Sicily: T. Fischer-Hansen, ‘The Earliest Town-Planning of the Western Greek Colonies, with Special Regard to Sicily’, in M. H. Hansen (ed.), Introduction to an Inventory of Poleis (Copenhagen, 1996), 317–73.
(14) Generally, T. Hölscher, Öffentliche Räume in frühen griechischen Städten (Heidelberg, 1998); F. de Polignac, ‘Analyses de l’espace et urbanisations en Grèce archaïque: Quelques pistes de recherche récentes’, REA 108 (2006), 203–23.
(15) Plato, Laws 739a–740a, 745b–e, 847e; Aristotle, Politics 7.1330a–1331b (I owe these points to B. Gray); P. Vidal-Naquet and P. Lévêque, Clisthène l’Athénien (Paris, 1964); Lewis, ‘Public Property’, notably on Aristotle, Politics 1267b.
(16) SEG 42.785 (Thasos law, ed. H. Duchêne); [Aristotle], Constitution of the Athenians 50.2 (with [Xenophon], Constitution of the Athenians 3.4: public prosecution of illegal building on ), and IG II2 380 (astynomoi caring for wide streets in Peiraieus); OGIS 483; generally, D. Hennig, ‘Staatliche Ansprüche an privaten Immobilienbesitz’, Chiron, 25 (1995), 235–53.
(17) Syll. 936.
(18) W. Schuller, W. Hoepfner, and E.-L. Schwander (eds), Demokratie und Architektur (Munich, 1989).
(19) H. Kennedy, ‘From Polis to Madina: Urban Change in Late Antique and Early Islamic Syria’, Past and Present, 106 (1985), 3–27; A. Raymond, ‘Islamic City, Arab City: Orientalist Myths and Recent Views’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 21 (1994), 3–18.
(20) B. Fehr, ‘Kosmos und Chreia: Der Sieg der reinen über die praktische Vernunft in der griechischen Stadtarchitektur des 4. Jhs. v. Chr.’, Hephaistos, 1 (1979), 155–85.
(21) Pérée rhodienne 102, same document I. Rhod. Peraia 201.
(24) G. Pugliese-Carratelli, ‘Supplemento epigrafico rodio’, ASAtene, 30–2 (1952–4), 247–9, no. 1; the letter- forms suggest a date in the first half of the 3rd cent..
(25) CID 4.85, Delphi, Amphiktyonic decree concerning the stoa of Attalos I; LSCG 43, 2nd-cent. Athenian decree regulating dedication of painted portraits in a shrine, with removal of offerings ‘unworthy of the shrine’; and 50, 1st-cent. Athenian decree concerning a shrine of Isis in the deme of Teithras; on this document, P. Martzavou, ‘“Isis” et “Athènes”: Épigraphie, espace et pouvoir à la basse époque hellénistique’, in M.-J. Versluys and L. Bricault (eds), Les Cultes isiaques et le pouvoir (Leiden, forthcoming). See generally Wilhelm, Inschriftenkunde, ii. 161–7. IGLS 1261 (a 2nd-cent. decree of the authorities of Laodikeia on Sea, in Seleukid Syria), though slightly different (concerning legal issues of land rights when dedications are made in a private shrine), illustrates the same point about public authority over space (J. D. Sosin, ‘Unwelcome Dedications: Public Law and Private Religion in Hellenistic Laodicea by the Sea’, CQ 55 (2005), 130–9). In Roman-era Nysa, the right to set up dedications in shrines was liable to a tax: F. Ertuğrul and H. Malay, ‘An Honorary Decree from Nysa’, EA 43 (2010), 31–42.
(27) W. W. Tarn, ‘The Political Standing of Delos’, JHS 44 (1924), 141–57; Perrin-Samindayar, ‘Aere perennius’, 117–24.
(28) Michel 534; correct Michel’s . On Apollodoros (probably a Ptolemaic official), I. L. Merker, ‘The Ptolemaic Officials and the League of the Islanders’, Historia, 19 (1970), 152, 159; R. Bagnall, Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt (Leiden, 1976), 137–8; G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches (Darmstadt, 1994), 25–6. For the ‘tables’, see the parallel material from Athens, gathered in R. E. Wycherley, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia. Athenian Agora, 3 (Princeton, 1957), 192–3, to which add now RO 20 (law on testing silver coinage, proposed by Nikophon).
(29) IG 11.3.665 and 1053, also in Choix Délos, no. 49; (third quarter of the 3rd cent.).
(30) IGBulg I2 391 (3rd or 2nd cent.).
(31) ID 1517, with Chr. Habicht, ‘Neues zur hellenistischen Geschichte von Kos’, 146–7.
(32) Michel 537–8, with C. Habicht, ‘Notes on Inscriptions from Cyzicus’, EA 38 (2005), 93–100 (mid-1st cent.).
(33) Other examples of grants of sites in public space upon request by people within a city: Inschr. Magnesia 102 (gerontes honour their gymnasiarch) with Wilhelm, Akademieschriften, iv. 388, for further parallels. The wish of the Pergamene neoi to honour their gymnasiarch Metrodoros is met with a general ‘granting’, (Inschr. Pergamon 252, ll. 39–40). On Athenian-controlled Delos, the Athenians granted a gymnasiarch the right to set up dedications in the gymnasion, and a statue ‘next to the archeion (official building) of the Commisioners of the Emporion, on the left hand side as you go up’: SEG 47.1218 (mid-2nd cent.); the deme of Melite granted permission to a priestess to set up a painted eikon in the Eleusinion: SEG 42.116 (early 2nd cent.).
(34) e.g. IG 4.672 (Argolid); 7.2520 (Thebes); 10.2.1.179 (Thessalonike); I. Erythrai 106. For variants, e.g. PH 58 (Kos); IG 5.2.312 with L. Robert, A travers l’Asie Mineure (Athens and Paris, 1980), 135; earlier bibliography in Wilhelm, Abhandlungen, ii. 179. These formulas are equivalent to the Latin L(ocus) D(atus) D(ecreto) Decurionum.
(35) OGIS 213, reading , but the verb is unclear, as pointed out by A. Rehm (republishing the text as Inschr. Didyma 479). It also is the council which designates the ‘finest spot’ in Thessalonike for the statue set up by the Delians (Choix Délos, no. 49, III, ll. 30–2).
(36) Robert, Coll. Froehner, no. 54.
(37) SEG 39.1244, III, ll. 43–6. See also the Milesian decree for Eirenias, Nouveau Choix, no. 7 (also Queyrel, Portraits des Attalides, 287–9; originally published by P. Herrmann); I. Rhod. Peraia 402/Pérée rhodienne 45.
(38) Syll. 762.
(39) I. Ilion 2, SEG 53.1373 with L. Robert, Monnaies antiques en Troade (Paris and Geneva, 1966), 29–30.
(40) F. Lefèvre, L’Amphictionie Pyléo-delphique (Athens, 1998), 45–6, is cautious on the difficulty of distinguishing control and ownership at Delphi.
(41) IGBulg I213 (but the text is perhaps in need of correction; the transaction is probably about allowing the benefactor to set up his own statue).
(42) Robert, Hellenica, vii. 241–3, on moving statues (the particular example analysed is the statue of an Augustan governor, moved but reinscribed in AD 171); earlier, Wilhelm, Inschriftenkunde, ii. 164–5.
(43) Inscr. Lindos 2.419, ll. 30–44.
(44) IGR 4.1703, improved by A. Wilhelm, ‘Die Beschlüsse der Chier zu Ehren des Leukios Nassios’, Wiener Studien, 59 (1941), 89–109, and J. Keil, ‘Die Volksbeschlüsse der Chier für Lucius Nassius’, Jahreshefte, 35 (1943), Beibl. 121–6.
(46) At Oropos, a special commission, arche, is seen to decide on the matter (Oropos 294).
(51) The epigraphical evidence is discussed by H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The Agora of Athens (Princeton, 1972); Henry, Honours and Privileges; Gauthier, Bienfaiteurs, 89. The material will be gathered in D. J. Geagan, Inscriptions: The Dedicatory Monuments, Athenian Agora, 18 (forthcoming). On context and development, Dillon, Ancient Greek Portrait Sculpture.
(52) J.-Y. Marc, ‘L’Agora de Thasos du IIe siècle av. J.-C. au Ier siècle ap. J.-C.: État des recherches’, in J.-Y. Marc and J.-C. Moretti (eds), Constructions publiques et programmes édilitaires en Grèece entre le IIe siécle av. J.-C. et le Ier siècle ap.J.-C., BCH suppl. 39 (Athens, 2001), 495–516.
(53) Megalepolis: SEG 48.521, H. Lauter and T. Spyropoulos ‘Megalopolis. 3, Vorbericht 1996–1997’, ArchAnz (1998) 415–51 (statues of Philip II and consort or son, in front of Stoa of Philip in the agora); H. Lauter, ‘Megalopolis: Ausgrabungen aus der Agora 1991–2002’, in E. Østby (ed.), Ancient Arcadia (Athens, 2005), 235–48.
(54) I. Erythrai 8 and 503.
(55) Plutarch, Alexander 17.9.
(56) I. Erythrai 28, SEG 33.963—1st half of the 3rd cent..
(57) IG 7.193 (the findspot, in the church of the Panagia in Alepochori, indicates a reuse), Wilhelm, Inschrifienkunde, i. 261–76.
(58) Plutarch, Kimon 1–2.
(59) SEG 32.856; Knoepfler, Décrets érétriens de proxénie, 258–9, and 179 n. 448 on the equestrian bases (found by V. Petrakos).
(60) IG 10.2.1.5 (1st cent. BC). The Hellenistic agora was not the same as the Roman ‘forum’ now visible in central Thessaloniki (as the newly opened site museum makes clear).
(61) I. M. Akamatis, ‘Agora Pellas: 15 chronia archaiologikis erevnas’, Archaia Makedonia, 6 (Thessaloniki, 1999), 28, with fig. 12: foundations along the northern stoa, bronze fragments. The fragments are now in the new Pella Museum, where I had the pleasure of viewing them with I. Akamatis.
(62) SH 705.
(63) I. Metropolis 1; Strabo 14.1.41.
(64) OGIS 229, l. 85.
(65) Messene: SEG 45.312, 48.494–7, and perhaps SEG 47.393, 395 (honorific bases, found near or in the fountainhouse of Arsinoe west of the agora). Mantineia: G. Fougeres, Mantinée et l’Arcadie orientale (Paris, 1898), 174. Kassope: W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwander, Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland (Munich, 1994), 124–6 (foundations for fifty monuments). Andros: BE 70, 491; Eresos: IG 12.2.527, statue of benefactor set up ‘in the most prominent spot in the agora’ (c.240?). I. Adramytteion 17 is an honorific decree for Pamphilos, an Attalid courtier: his statue will be set up ‘in the agora’.
(67) Robert, Hellenica, ix. 33, on Wolfe Expedition 433. On the adornment characteristic of the Roman-era city in Asia Minor, A.-V. Pont, Orner la cité: Enjeux culturels et politiques du paysage urbain dans l’Asie gréco-romaine (Bordeaux, 2010).
(68) N. P. Milner, ‘A Hellenistic Statue Base in the Upper Agora at Oinoanda’, Anatolian Studies, 48 (1998), 113–16.
(69) M. Trümpy, Die ‘Agora des Italiens’ in Delos (Rahden, 2008).
(71) Some examples out of thousands: Inscr. Thrac. Aeg. 4, 5, 6, 7 (all from Abdera).
(72) SEG 41.1003B, ll. 38–44, with P. Gauthier, ‘Un gymnasiarque honoré à Colophon’, 102–3.
(73) Aristotle, Politics 1331a30–b3.
(74) S. von Reden, ‘The Well-Ordered Polis: Topographies of Civic Space’, and P. Millett, ‘Encounters in the Agora’, both in P. Cartledge, P. Millett, and S. von Reden (eds), Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 1998), 170–90 and 203–28 respectively; Hansen, above, n. 48; W. Hoepfner and L. Lehmann (eds), Die Griechische Agora (Mainz, 2006); K. Vlassopoulos, ‘Free Spaces: Identity, Experience and Democracy in Classical Athens’, CQ 57 (2007), 33–52; J. Shear, Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 2011), 263–84.
(75) OGIS 309 with L. Robert, Études Anatoliennes: Recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie Mineure (Paris, 1937), 9–20.
(76) Hdt. 1.153 (but in 3.139, Darius, the future Great King, eagerly bargains in the agora—as pointed out to me by Aneurin Ellis-Evans).
(77) Inschr. Dor. Inseln 63, with Peek on M. D. Chaviaras, ‘Nisirou epigraphai’, ArchEph (1913), 7–8, no. 1 (both 3rd-cent.).
(78) Other examples: Knoepfler, Décrets érétriens de proxénie, no. VII (Eretria, early Hellenistic); IG 12.3.249 (Anaphe, late Hellenistic, reading at l. 25); I. Iasos 99, decree for C. Iulius Capito, honouring him with a painted portrait, in whichever sacred or public place he wishes (1st cent. AD); LBW 1594 (Aphrodisias, imperial period; same document IAph 12.206).
(79) Discussed above, 22.
(80) Inschr. Kaunos 47–8, 102, 107–8, 109–11, 112, 113, 114; C. Marek and C. Işık, Das Monument des Protogenes in Kaunos (Bonn, 1997), 70.
(81) G. Despinis, ‘Timitikon psephisma ek Parou’, ArchDelt 20/1 (1965), 119–32, with BE 67, 441, and R. Bagnall, Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions, 150. The shrine of Hestia is identified with the prytaneion of the city by G. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros: Vierter vorläufiger Bericht über die Forschungskampagnen 1972–1980. II. Klassische und hellenistische Bauten auf Paros’, ArchAnz (1982), 668–75, followed by V. Lambrinoudakis in V. Lambrinoudakis and M. Wörrle, ‘Ein hellenistisches Reformgesetz über das öffentliche Urkundenwesen von Paros’, Chiron, 13 (1983), 306–8; further below, n. 98.
(82) ISE 129.
(83) Thouria: SEG 11.954 (painted portrait in temple of Syrian Goddess, 1st cent.); Demetrias: B. Helly, ‘Décrets de Démétrias pour les juges étrangers’, BCH 95 (1971), 548 (foreign judges of Messene honoured with portraits set up in shrine of Zeus Akraios); Delphi: e.g. FD 3.4.63 (statue set up by citizens of Delphi).
(84) SEG 48.781 (unpublished); Polybios 4.62.2 does attest statues of the kings in Dion, and Livy 44.6.3 gilt statues in the same city (or perhaps rather small-scale gold dedications, since Perseus removed them to prevent them being captured).
(85) The majority of preserved honorific statue bases in IG 12.6.1 come from the Heraion. See A. Herda in Stemmer, Standorte, 133–9, with bibliography; P. Herrmann, ‘Die Inschriften römischer Zeit aus dem Heraion von Samos’, AthMitt 75 (1960), 68–183, esp. 96–169 (with considerations on findspot and the history of dedications in the shrine at 97); H. J. Kienast and K. Hallof, ‘Ein Ehrenmonument für samische Scribonii aus dem Heraion’, Chiron, 29 (1999), 205–23 (esp. 205–7), on an early 1st-cent. AD honorific monument found on the eastern edge of the shrine, to the south of the sacred way.
(87) C. Brélaz and S. Schmid, ‘Une nouvelle dédicace à la triade artémisiaque provenant d’Érétrie’, RA (2004), 227–58, re. IG 12.9.99, 276–8; the last, found at Chalkis, might come from a hypothetical ‘Artemision intra muros’ (Knoepfler, Décrets érétriens de proxénie, 141), but transport from Kato Vathia/Amarynthos seems equally likely.
(89) Pausanias 8.37.2. On the remarkable honorific reliefs for Polybios, below, 279–84.
(90) Above, n. 5; P. Gauthier, ‘Le Décret de Colophon l’Ancienne en l’honneur du Thessalien Asandros et la sympolitie entre les deux Colophon’, JSav (2003), 61–100.
(91) On statues in the temple of Hera at Olympia, as seen by Pausanias (not quite a ‘museum’-style display), R. Krumeich, ‘Vom Haus der Gottheit zum Museum? Zu Ausstattung und Funktion des Heraion von Olympia und des Athenatempels von Lindos’, Antike Kunst, 51 (2008), 73–95.
(92) Ada: J. Carter, The Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene (London, 1983), 271–6.
(93) Polybios 8.9.1–2 (in the ‘double temple’ of the city, one half being given to Asklepios, the other to Leto. on these reliefs, below, 279–85.
(94) A. Ippel, ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1910–1911. II, Die Inschriften’, AthMitt 37 (1912), 294–5, no. 20 (IGR 4.1683); Radt, Pergamon, 186–8. On the head, K. Fittschen, ‘Von Einsatzbüsten und freistehenden Büsten: Zum angeblichen Bildnis der ‘Keltenfürstin Adobogiona’ aus Pergamon’, in C. Evers and A. Tsingarida (eds), Rome et ses provinces (Brussels, 2001), 109–17 (free-standing bust, not head worked for insertion in statue); the identification with Adobogiona was proposed (with dubious physiognomical arguments) by W. Hahland, ‘Bildnis der Keltenfürsten Adobogiona’, in G. Moro (ed.), Festschrift für Rudolf Egger (Klagenfurt 1953), ii. 135–57. A male statue found in the cella might represent Attalos II, the dedicator of the temple. This temple and the statues within it are the subject of a forthcoming study by M. Mathys, to appear in J. Griesbach (ed.), Polis und Porträt: Standbilder als Medien öffentlicher Repträsentation im hellenistischen Osten; I am grateful for M. Mathys’ help with this topic.
(95) S. I. Charitonidis, Ai epigraphai tis Lesbou: Sympleroma (Athens, 1968), no. 6, B line 9.
(96) IG 12.3.237.
(97) IG II21314, 1327, 1334.
(98) The decree clearly states that the statue will be set ‘in the shrine’ of Hestia; in contrast, a decree mentions a stele to be set up ‘next to the shrine’. Perhaps the ‘shrine’ proper was the circular building in the centre of the porticoed enclosure (which would presumably be the prytaneion of the city). On the shrine, K. Müller, Hellenistische Architektur auf Paros (Berlin, 2003).
(99) SEG 50.1195, l. 27.
(100) OGIS 332.
(101) I.Knidos 59. For a possible parallel at Halikarnassos, see the honorific decree GIBM 893 (where mention of a temple and the adjective σννναον are restored).
(102) Ferrary, ‘Les Inscriptions du sanctuaire de Claros’, 357–9; S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power (Cambridge, 1984), 150, with further examples.
(103) Inschr. Priene 3.
(104) Pausanias 8.30.5. The shrine has not been located.
(105) Oropos 442.
(106) Knoepfler, Décrets éretriens de proxénie, no. VII: perhaps Timotheos’ statue? Bases in the western parodos (entrance passageway) of the theatre bore choregic victory monuments and not honorific statues: D. Knoepfler, La Patrie de Narcisse (Paris, 2010), 230.
(107) A. Herda in Stemmer, Standorte, 133–9; H. Kyrieleis, Führer durch das Heraion von Samos (Athens, 1981), 50; F. K. Dörner and G. Gruben, ‘Die Exedra der Ciceronen’, AthMitt 68 (1953), 63–76, with P. Herrmann, ‘Samos’, 128–30, 149 no. c.
(108) Above, n. 5.
(109) On votives, W. H. D. Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge, 1902); Bodel and Kajava, Religious Dedications.
(110) For a particular example, studied recently, see L. Beschi, ‘I “disiecta membra” di un santuario di Myrina (Lemno)’, ASAtene, 79 (2001), 191–251, at Lemnos.
(111) Rhamnous 10, same document SEG 41.86 (painted portrait in the Nemeseion; 252/1 or 251/0, as Aneurin Ellis-Evans points out to me: SEG 50.1); Inscr. Eleusis 196, same document IG II2 1299 or Syll. 485 (statue in aule of the shrine, 234).
(112) IG II2 1271, 1327.
(113) Sinuri 16; I. Mylasa 869.
(114) Starting in the late 3rd and early 2nd centuries (Inscr. Lindos 1.123, 125, 169).
(115) IG 9.2.1107B (2nd cent. BC).
(117) ID 2075–8, 2081–2.
(118) SEG 41.332, 51.566. At Lykosoura, the painted portraits of a couple, set up in the shrine, recompense piety: IG 5.2.516.
(119) Inschr. Priene 18, with P. Gauthier, ‘Les Honneurs de l’officier Séleucide Larichos à Priène’, JSav (1980), 35–50.
(120) I. Smyrna 578. Statue bases from the Roman period have been found in the Agora: SEG 53.1327–32 (P. Herrmann, H. Malay).
(121) H. Hepding, ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1908–1909. II, Die Inschriften’, AthMitt 35 (1910), 465–6, no. 47; 470–1, no. 54; H. Müller, ‘Königin Stratonike, Tochter des Königes Ariarathes’, Chiron, 21 (1991), 393–424.
(122) J. Delorme, Gymnasion: Étude sur les monuments consacrés à l’éducation en Grèce (des origines à l’Empire Romain) (Paris, 1960)—L. Robert promised a review in BE 62,55; Gauthier, ‘Trois décrets’, 226–31 (eye-opening); P. Gauthier and M. V. Hatzopoulos, La Loi gymnasiarchique de Beroia (Athens, 1993); P. Gauthier, ‘Notes sur le rôle du gymnase dans les cités hellénistiques’, in Zanker and Wörrle, Stadtbild und Bürgerbild, 1–11; D. Kah and P. Scholz (eds), Das hellenistische Gymnasion (Berlin, 2004); S. Skaltsa, ‘Hellenistic Gymnasia: The Built Environment and Social Dynamics of a Polis Institution’ (D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 2008), 75–125, systematic and exhaustive on honorific statues in the gymnasion, and generally on the institution. I am grateful to S. Skaltsa for corrections and complements to this section.
(123) e.g. Gauthier and Hatzopoulos, Loi gymnasiarchique, B 48–72; Milet 1.9.368; IG 12.7.233, 234 (Minoa on Amorgos, 1st cent. AD?).
(124) H.von Hesberg, ‘Das griechische Gymnasion im 2 Jh. v. Chr.’,in Zanker and Wörrle, Stadtbild und Bürgerbild, 13–27; Skaltsa, Hellenistic Gymnasia; R. von den Hoff, ‘Hellenistische Gymnasia: Raumgestaltung und Raumfunktionen’, in A. Matthaei and M. Zimmermann (eds), Stadtbilder im Hellenismus (Berlin, 2009), 245–75.
(125) Gauthier, ‘Un gymnasiarque honoré à Colophon’ (SEG 55.1251); the decree for the gymnasiarch Aglanor at Eresos is another early example (IG 12, suppl. 122).
(126) IG 12.9.236–7, IG 12, suppl. 553.
(127) I. Ephesos 6.
(128) F. Krischen, ‘Das hellenistische Gymnasion von Priene’, JDAI 38–9 (1923–4), 133–50.
(129) K. Lazaridi, ‘To gymnasio tis Amphipolis’, in Mneme D. Lazaridi: Polis kai chora stin archaia Makedonia kai Thraki (Thessaloniki, 1990), 253.
(130) Radt, Pergamon, 124–5; P. Schazmann, Das Gymnasion: Der Templebezirk der Hera Basileia. Altertümer von Pergamon, 6 (Berlin, 1923), 47. My thanks to M. Mathys and F. Pirson for helping me see the gymnasion at Pergamon.
(133) IG 12.9.237 A, ll. 8–9, restored by Wlhelm as with D. Knoepfler, ‘Débris d’évergésie au gymnase d’Érétrie’, in O. Curty with S. Piccan and S. Codourey, L’Huile et l’argent: Gymnasiarchie et évergétisme dans la Grèce hellénistique (Fribourg, 2009), 232–4 (‘tribune’, i.e. special seating, in the stadion?).
(135) SEG 41.347–8; generally P. G. Themelis, ‘Die Statuenfunde aus dem Gymnasion von Messene’, Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie, 15 (1998–9), 59–84.
(137) IGR 4.1703, with further bibliography above, n. 44. On the akroaterion, Robert, Études Anatoliennes, 76–91; Delorme, Gymnasion, 324–5 (but his argument that the akroaterion at Chios must have been ‘la salle principale puisqu’on y érigeait les statues honorifiques’ is precisely not compelling).
(138) IG 11.4.1087; Knoepfler, ‘Sôsilos’; A, Jacquemin, ‘Gymnase de Délos’; Moretti, ‘Inventaires’, notably 143–4, based on his identification between the earliest gymnasion and the ‘Palestre du Lac’ (Moretti, ‘Gymnase’).
(139) ID 1929–30, with J. Audiat, Le Gymnase. Exploration Archéologique de Délos, 28 (Paris, 1970), 46; discussed in R. von den Hoff, ‘Ornamenta Delos und Pergamon als Beispielfälle der Skulpturen- ausstattung hellenistischer Gymnasien’, in D. Kah and P. Scholz (eds), Das hellenistische Gymnasion (Berlin, 2004), 380.
(143) I. Prose Egypte 15, 27, 40, 27 (earlier edns in SEG 8.694, 641, 529), all from Egypt (in I. Prose Egypte 27, there is an indication of several statues in the gymnasion at Ptolemaios; the text should perhaps read , ‘on account of their character’ rather than , ‘on account of their usual manner’? ‘in the usual manner’?); IG 12.3 Suppl. 331 (Thera).
(146) I. Ephesos 6, with Robert, OMS v. 347–54. The same phenomenon appears in a late 2nd-cent. decree from Pergamon, for the gymnasiarch Metrodoros: H. Hepding, ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1904–1905. II, Die Inschriften’, AthMitt 32 (1907), 273–8, no. 10.
(147) OGIS 339 (Menas); SEG 54.1101. See also, e.g., Michel 456 (Halikarnassos); I. Iasos 24; Inschr.Magnesia 102; I. Kios 6; Inschr. Pergamon 252; IG 12.7.235; 12.9.236–7; 12, suppl. 553; 10.2.1; Inscr. Scythiae Minoris 1.59 (Istros). On the services of gymnasiarchs, F. Quass, Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Staedten des griechischen Ostens: Untersuchungen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit (Stuttgart, 1993), 206–7.
(148) Pausanias 1.17.2. I would like to suggest that this is the equestrian statue that overshadowed the statue of Chrysippos which was set up ‘in the Kerameikos’, i.e. the area of the Agora (Cicero, De Finibus 1.39, Diogenes Laertius 7.182), and which I hence identify with the statue of Chrysippos mentioned by Pausanias as located in the Ptolemaion, ‘next to a bronze statue of Ptolemy’—this may be the statue set up by Chrysippos’ nephew (Plutarch, Moralia 1033e). I thus propose that there existed one, and not three, statues of Chrysippos in Athens. It is true that there are no archaeologically attested equestrian bases in gymnasia; if my hypothesis is correct, it would entail imagining a suitable site in a Hellenistic gymnasion such as the Ptolemaion (on which see below, n. 265).
(151) Jacobsthal, ‘Pergamon’, 379–81, no. 2 (Pergamon); MAMA 6.173 (statues of Eumenes II and the future Attalos II in the gymnasion at Apameia), with BE 39, 400; Robert, Hellenica xi/xii. 117–25 (improving IG 12, suppl. 250: statue of Attalid king in gymnasion of Andros, 2nd cent.).
(152) IGR 4.1703; also IG 12.7.515 (as part of memorials in Aigiale, on Amorgos, 2nd cent.); Michel 545 with Wilhelm, Akademieschriften, i. 73–80 (Synnada, late Hellenistic?). Generally, J. Strubbe, ‘Epigrams and Consolation Decrees for Deceased Youths’, Antiquite Classique, 67 (1998), 45–75; who would date Michel 545 to the 2nd cent. AD (p. 70; further J. Strubbe, ‘Cultic Honours for Benefactors in the Cities of Asia Minor’, in L. de Ligt, E. A. Hemelrijk, and H. W. Singor, Roman Rule and Civic Life (Amsterdam, 2004), 318–19).
(153) I. Kyme 19; I. Knidos 59.
(155) For instance, from the gymnasion at Eretria, IG 12.9.234, 236, 237, 239.
(156) Moretti, ‘Inventaires’; von den Hoff, ‘Ornamenta ?’. An inventory of reliefs and sculpture from the Athenian Agora does not concern a gymnasion: J. Ma, ‘The Inventory SEG 26.139 and the Athenian Asklepieion’, Tekmeria, 9 (2008), 7–16.
(158) R. Kousser, ‘Creating the Past: The Vénus de Milo and the Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece’, AJA 109 (2005), 227–50 (Kousser’s view of the post-Classical polis as dominated by nostalgia should be rejected, notably in view of her outdated understanding of the gymnasion and the post-Classical polis); Pausanias 9.22.
(159) M.-T. Couilloud, ‘Les Graffites du Gymnase’, in Audiat, Le Gymnase, 101–34.
(162) From Messene, e.g. SEG 41.348, 47.400 B; 52.401.
(164) SEG 41.347, 46.423, 47.399 (for a deceased honorand: perhaps a youth?).
(165) SEG 50.522, with J. Ma, ‘Honorific Statues and Hellenistic History’, in L. Yarrow and C. Smith (eds), Imperialism, Cultural Politics and Polybius (Oxford, 2011), 234–6.
(166) IGR 4.1682.
(167) H. Hepding, ‘Mithradates von Pergamon’, AthMitt 34 (1909), 329–40, for the evidence.
(168) Generally, C. Schwingenstein, Die Figurenausstattung des griechischen Theatergebäudes (Munich, 1977); H. von Hesberg, ‘Hellenistische Theater: Zur Funktionalität der Räume und ihrer Bedeutung für die Polis’, in A. Matthaei and M. Zimmermann (eds), Stadtbilder im Hellenismus (Berlin, 2009), 277–303. Delos: P. Fraisse and J.-C. Moretti, Le Théâtre. Exploration Archéologique de Délos, 42 (Paris, 2007), 78–86. Epidauros: A. von Gerkan and W. Müller-Wiener, Das Theater von Epidauros (Stuttgart 1961), 23 (the analemma walls ended with some form of base or pedestal). Delphi: four bases are mentioned by N. Valmin, FD 3.6.7, 47, 56, but there is no epigraphical indication of the nature of the statues or offerings on them. J.-F. Bommelaer, Guide de Delphes: Le Site (Athens, 1991), 211, writes cheerfully: ‘nombre d’artistes victorieux et d’intellectuels en renom eurent leur statue, dont, au mieux, la base seule subsiste’, ‘many victorious artists and famous intellectuals received a statue, whose mere base, at best, survives’; no indications in J.-F. Bommelaer, ‘Observations sur le théâtre de Delphes’, in J. F. Bommelaer (ed.), Delphes: Centenaire de la ‘grande fouille’ réalisée par l’Ecole française d’Athènes, 1892–1903 (Leiden, 1992), 277–300.
(169) Fittschen, ‘Statue des Menander’; K. Fittschen, ‘Eine Stadt für Schaulustige und Müßiggänger. Athen im 3. und 2. Jh. v. Chr.’, in Zanker and Wörrle, Stadtbild und Bürgerbild, 55–77; Papastamati-von Moock, ‘Menander und die Tragikergruppe’.
(170) Below, 137–9, on Inschr. Magnesia 92 and F. Hiller von Gaertringen, ‘Ausgrabungen im Theater von Magnesia am Maiandros. I. Inschriften’, AthMitt 19 (1894), 1–53. At Priene, these spots are taken by votive offerings (of under-life-size male figures in violent movement: the ivy-adorned bases suggest e.g. satyrs rather than the athletes often reconstructed). I. Ephesos 2058 is the statue base set up at the end of the southern retaining wall of the theatre at Ephesos, by the Italians quei Ephesis negotiantur for L. Agrius l. f. Publeianus, in the Roman- style dative (mid-ist cent.).
(171) A. von Gerkan, Das Theater von Priene, als Einzelanlage und in seiner Bedeutung für das hellenistische Bühnenwesen (Munich, 1921), 47–8.
(174) Messene: SEG 52.380. Sikyon: Pausanias 2.7.5 (statue of Aratos: a relocated Hellenistic monument?). The statue of Apollonios, son of Epigonos, ‘benefactor of the fatherland in many ways’, was probably set on a (reused) columnar statue base in the Roman stage building of the theatre of Magnesia on Maeander: Inschr. Magnesia 132B. The frons scaenae could be used for elaborate sculptural programmes: E. Rosso, ‘Le Message religieux des statues impériales et divines dans les théâtres romains: Approche contextuelle et typologique’, in J.-C. Moretti (ed.), Fronts de scène et lieux de culte dans le théâtre antique (Lyon, 2009), 89–126.
(176) Inschr. Priene 108, ll. 328–40.
(177) Above, 91; below, 137–9.
(178) Above, n. 169 for Athens; IG 12.9.280 for Eretria. The fragmentary marble statue of a himation-wearing man, standing next to an omphalos and found close to the theatre of Magnesia, may be a poet: C. Watzinger, in C. Humann,Magnesia am Maeander: Bericht über Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1891–1893 (Berlin, 1904), 208–9 (but this does not have to be a public honorific).
(179) IG 11.4.1079, early 2nd cent.; (the form of the block and the formulation of the inscription seem to indicate an honorific statue; the relief decoration, with tripods and an ivy crown, is unusual, as are the traces of an added- on bronze plaque (bearing an epigram?). On Satyros, I. E. Stephanis, Dionysiakoi technitai: Symvoles stin prosopographia tou theatrou kai tis mousikis ton archaion Hellinon (Iraklio, 1988), no. 2240; Satyros is also attested on a famous Delphic inscription, Syll. 648A. On the theatre at Delos, above, n. 168.
(180) Inschr. Magnesia 92.
(181) The base, IG II2 3427, was found south of the theatre, before the temple of Dionysos: M. and E. Levensohn, ‘Inscriptions on the South Slope of the Acropolis’, Hesperia, 16 (1947), 72 and fig. 1. The base is columnar, and hence probably not a column from the Odeion (as Kotsidu writes, , 99). On the restoration of the Odeion, Vitr. 5.9.1; on Ariobarzanes II, Herrmann, ‘Samos’, 99.
(182) Inschr. Magnesia 129.
(183) Syll. 624.
(184) SEG 53.404. SEG 48.492, a statue base found near the western parodos of the theatre at Messene, mentions no particular service in relation to the theatre; SEG 51.427 is a statue base for an athlete. A columnar statue base from Magnesia (Inschr. Magnesia 132A), honouring an athlete (1st cent. BC) may have stood in the theatre before being reused in the Roman-era stage building. An inscription from the theatre at Sikyon (IG 4.428) may be the orthostate from the base of an athletic statue (Kallistratos, son of Philothales; in the nominative). At Argos, the statue base of an athlete (nominative) and that of a public honorific for Marius, found reused in late contexts, may come from the theatre (P. Charneux, ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1956: Argos VIII, Inscriptions’, BCH 81 (1957), 684, no. 2).
(185) IG II2 648, 657; above, n. 169.
(186) SEG 28.952 (originally published by Hiller von Gaertringen, and again by L. Robert: Documents d’Asie Mineure, 148–56). On , Robert, OMS ii. 901; perhaps the statue was set up in an intercolumniation of a stoa, in front of or around the council-house (rather than inside the building; discussion in W. A. Donald, The Political Meeting Places of the Greeks (Baltimore, Md., 1943), 269).
(187) These have been revealed by the current excavation by E. Doǧer, whom I am pleased to thank for his hospitality at the site; the inscriptions are under study by H. Malay.
(188) IG 5.1.1455A, with G. P. Oikonomos, ‘Anaskaphai en Messini’, Praktika (1925–6), 60–2 (statue of e.g. emperor, set up by Ti. Claudius Saithidas — so a public honorific paid for by a notable, or a private honorific).
(189) I. Ilion 2; SEG 53.1373; I. Ilion 12, 14.
(190) Syll. 368; I. Smyrna 577. On the question of the location of the Hellenistic (and indeed Archaic) Panionion (at Otomatik Tepe near Güzelçaml ı, 2), A. Herda, ‘Panionion-Melia, Mykalessos-Mykale, Perseus und Medusa: Überlegungen zur Besiedlungsgeschichte der Mykale in der frühen Eisenzeit’, IstMitt 56 (2006), 43–102, and H. Lohmann, ‘Forschungen und Ausgrabungen in der Mykale 2001–2006’, IstMitt 57 (2007), 102–5.
(191) I. Stratonikeia 1418 (earlier SEG 53.1229).
(192) Livy 36.20. Another honorific portrait is attested in the federal shrine, but much later: IG 7.2711 (gilt painted portrait of Epameinondas of Akraiphia, set up in the shrine of Artemis Itonia, by decree of ‘all the naopoioi in the festival of the Pamboiotoi’ but in the name of the Boiotian confederation, AD 37). There are no attested statues for the other federal shrine at Onchestos. Many of the equestrian statues in the Oropian Amphiaraion, later reused, might have been set up by the Boiotians.
(193) IG 9.1.91 (Hyampolis); 101, from Elateia, mentions a statue or painted portrait to be set up (the common shrine?).
(194) Statues are found at Larisa, set up by the Thessalian League which emerged after 196: ISE 101 (M. Caecilius Metellus); C. Habicht, ‘Neue Inschriften aus Thessalien’, Demetrias 5 (Bonn 1987), 311–12 (the 1st-cent. proconsul of Achaia Q. Acutius Flaccus); however, none of these statue bases was found in an archaeological context suggesting a federal shrine, nor does the inscribed caption give any such indications. Two honorific statues set up by the Thessalian League are known through bases found at the shrine of Athena Itonia, but they date to the 3rd cent. AD (SEG 37.492–3; 54.558). On the shrine and its location, B. Intesiloglou, ‘I Itonia Athina kai to Thessaliko omospondiako iero tis sti Philia Karditzas’, Archaiologiko Ergo Thessalias kai Stereas Elladas, 1/2003 (Volos, 2006), 221–37; generally, D. Graninger, Cult and Koinon in Hellenistic Thessaly (Leiden, 2011), 43–86.
(195) SEG 24.449–50; P. Cabanes, L’Épire de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête romaine (272–167 av.J.C.) (Paris, 1976), 546–7; N. T. Katsikoudis, Dodone: Oi Timetikoi Andriantes (Ioannina 2006), with review by Ma, BMCR 2008.02.27.
(197) CID 4.86–9 (at least; other decrees, now fragmentary, could have included statues).
(199) SEG 24.449. When the Tloans set up the statue of Neoptolemos, a Ptolemaic high officer who fought off an incursion from the north in the early 3rd cent., they set it up in a shrine of the ‘three brothers’, mythical founders of Lykian cities (Robert, OMS vii. 531–47; S. Barbantani, ‘The Glory of the Spear: A Powerful Symbol in Hellenistic Poetry and Art. The Case of Neoptolemus “of Tlos” (and Other Ptolemaic Epigrams)’, Studi Classici e Orientali, 53 (2007) , 67–138; this may have been a ‘federal’ Lykian shrine rather than located in Tlos.
(201) IG 42 1.620, 621, 624–5, 644, 656.
(202) e.g. Jacquemin, Offrandes monumentales. For the archaic and classical periods, M. Scott, Delphi and Olympia (Cambridge, 2010). On Hellenistic Olympia, K. Freitag, ‘Olympia as “Erinnerungsort” in hellenistischer Zeit’, in M. Haake and M. Jung (eds), Griechische Heiligtümer als Erinnerungsorte von der Archaik bis in den Hellenismus (Stuttgart, 2011), 69–94.
(204) A. Mallwitz, Olympia und seine Bauten (Munich, 1972), 63, 105–6, 121. The ‘southern route’ past the Leonidaion, then along the southern edge of the ‘Altis’, was originally outside the ‘Altis’ itself: the Roman-era wall, which includes the equestrian statues within the sacred precinct, cuts off a few statues opposite the Leonidaion from the route. On spaces at Olympia, T. Hölscher, ‘Rituelle Räume und politische Denkmaler’, in H. Kyrieleis (ed.), Olympia 1875–2000 (Mainz, 2002), 331–43.
(205) H. B. Siedentopf, Das hellenistische Reiterdenkmal (Waldsassen, 1968), no. 65 the base of Philopoimen; Jacquemin, Offrandes monumentales, 200, 308 no. 005.
(206) ISE 60. Other statues set up by the Achaian League or Achaian contingents: Inschr. Olympia 297, 301, 318, 328. Statues set up by Peloponnesian communities: Inschr. Olympia 294 (Psophis in Arkadia), 300 (Spartan exiles upon their return), 316 (Sparta, honouring Elis), 396 (boule and demos of Megalepolis), 398 (Tegea), 402 (Phigaleia). Most honorific statues in the shrine were set up by Elis; and most statues were those of athletic victors.
(207) SEG 16.28, with Moretti, ISE ii. 31; Pausanias 10.33.3; 3rd cent..
(208) Choix Délos, no. 123.
(210) T. Wiegand and H. Schrader (eds), Priene: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1895–1898 (Berlin, 1904); M. Schede, Die Ruinen von Priene (Berlin, 1964); F. Rumscheid, Priene: A Guide to the ‘Pompeii of Asia Minor’ (Istanbul, 1998); W. Raeck, ‘Priene. Neue Forschungen an einem alten Grabungsort’, IstMitt 53 (2003), 313–423; A. von Kienlin, ‘Das Stadtzentrum von Priene als Monument bürgerlicher Selbstdarstellung’, in E.-L. Schwadner and K. Rheidt (eds), Macht der Architektur—Architektur der Macht (Mainz am Rhein, 2004), 114–20; R. Bielfeld, ‘Polis Made Manifest: The Physiognomy of the Public in the Hellenistic City with a Case Study on the Agora in Priene’, in C. Kuhn (ed.), Politische Kommunikation und öffentliche Meinung in der antiken Welt (Stuttgart, 2012), 87–122.
(211) H. Schrader, in Wiegand and Schrader, Priene, 206–13, with map; A. von Kienlin, Die Agora von Priene (Ph.D. thesis, Universität München, 2004).
(212) Inschr. Priene 18. However, something is peculiar about ‘base 18’: the surviving remnant is clearly the top Deckplatte of an equestrian, but set at ground level, without the high base shaft which normally provided both visibility and an inscribed surface. Either what we now see as ‘base 18’ is a Deckplatte reused in a foundation, or it is in fact the Deckplatte from neighbouring ‘base 19’.
(213) There are the foundations of one exedra; a family group was found in the area.
(214) Inschr. Priene 99, l. 17: proclamation in the agora; Inschr. Priene 113, 114: proclamation of crown in agora.
(216) Generally, Schrader, ibid. 81–136; W. Müller-Wiener, ‘Neue Weihgeschenke aus dem Athena-Heiligtum in Priene’, ArchAnz (1982), 691–702; A. von Kienlin and C. Schneider, in Raeck, ‘Priene’, 386–400.
(217) Inschr. Priene 3 and 231.
(219) Inschr. Priene 234, 240, 244, 252.
(220) Inschr. Priene 172–3; Schrader, in Wiegand and Schrader, Priene, 147–63. The statues are captioned in the nominative, and it is not clear whether these are public honorifics (possible, since the statue of Megabyxos, also captioned in the nominative, is definitely an honorific: n. 219 and above, 22). A cylindrical base in the temple itself is probably a reuse, and in any case its context is unclear: von Kienlin and Schneider, in Raeck, ‘Priene’, 389–90.
(221) Above, 91–3; Inschr. Priene 237, 246.
(222) Above, 86; Inschr. Priene 251 is a fragment from the base of an honorific monument, found reused, south of the Upper Gymnasion.
(224) Inschr. Priene 241.
(225) Inschr. Priene 246 is a 3rd-cent. AD statue set up in the prytaneion by ‘the most illustrious city of the Ionian Prienians and the most powerful boule’.
(226) e.g. Inschr. Priene 109.
(227) M. Wörrle, ‘Pergamon um 133 v. Chr.’, Chiron, 30 (2000), 543–57; M. Mathys, ‘Die Anfang vom Ende oder das Ende vom Anfang? Strategien visueller Repräsentation im späthellenistischen Pergamon’, in A. Matthaei and M. Zimmermann, Stadtbilder im Hellenismus (Berlin, 2009), 227–42; and now see esp. R. Bielfeld, ‘Wo nur sind die Bürger von Pergamon? Eine Phänomenologie bürgerlicher Unscheinbarkeit im städtischen Raum der Königresidenz’, IstMitt 60 (2010), 117–201.
(228) Radt, Pergamon, 89. The inscribed bases found in the Lower Agora belong to dedications (e.g. von Prott and Kolbe, ‘1900–1901 Inschriften’, 89–90, no. 73); some of the honorific statue bases found in modern Bergama might come from the Lower Agora (e.g. the statue base for Mithradates—above, n. 167—found in the (Çukurbağ Mahallesi: A. Conze and C. Schuchhardt ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1886–1898’, AthMitt 24 (1899), 177, no. 26).
(229) OGIS 266.
(230) K. Rheidt, ‘Die Obere Agora: Zur Entwicklung des hellenistischen Stadtzentrums von Pergamon’, IstMitt 42 (1992), 265.
(231) OGIS 332. I assume this statue did not stand on the foundation south of the temple, but closer to the altars in the middle of the agora (though there is no archaeological record of a suitable foundation).
(232) Inschr. Pergamon 61 (found near agora; statue of Eumenes II, set up by those who participated in the expedition against Nabis); 413 (Servilius Isauricus, in niche); perhaps 130 (priestess: more likely in the shrine of Athena or on terrace of the Great Altar).
(233) e.g. Inschr. Pergamon 29, 64, 181.
(234) Inschr. Pergamon 489, 490, 491 (early 2nd cent.), 494 (1st cent. BC); Eule, Bürgerinnen, 204–7; Mathys, ‘Anfang vom Ende?’, 232–4.
(236) e.g. Inschr. Pergamon 453–5.
(238) Inschr. Pergamon 129, 226, perhaps 492. Some of the female marble statues found in the area might have stood on the terrace of the Great Altar, unless they came from the terrace of the shrine of Athena (but they did not stand in the colonnade of the Altar): F. Queyrel, L’Autel de Pergame (Paris, 2005), 42–4. The marble peplos-wearing ‘Attalid Queen’ found near the Altar (Queyrel, Portraits des Attalides, H1) might be the (public honorific?) portrait of a priestess (suggested, almost subliminally, in Dillon, Female Portrait Statue, 80–1).
(239) Inschr. Pergamon 404, 408, 411, 412, 416, 417, 426, and F. Queyrel, ‘La Datation du Grand Autel de Pergame’, Studi Ellenistici, 16 (2005), 205 n. 19.
(242) See above, n. 94.
(243) Above, n. 121.
(247) Henry, Honours and Privileges; R. von den Hoff, ‘Tradition and Innovation: Portraits and Dedications on the Early Hellenistic Akropolis’, in O. Palagia and S. V. Tracy (eds), The Macedonians in Athens (Oxford, 2003), 173–85; Oliver, ‘Space and the Visualization of Power’; R. Krumeich, ‘Ehrenstatuen als Weihgeschenke auf der Athener Akropolis: Staatliche Ehreungen in religiösen Kontext’, in C. Frevel and H. vin Hesberg (eds), Kult und Kommunikation: Medien in Heligtümern der Antike (Wiesbaden, 2007), 308–413; R. Krumeich, ‘Formen der statuarischen Repräsentation römischer Honoranden auf der Akropolis von Athen im späten Hellenismus und in der frühen Kaiserzeit’, in S. Vlizos (ed.). He Athena kata ti Romaiki epochi: prosphates anakalypseis, nees erevnes/ Athens during the Roman Period: Recent Discoveries, New Evidence (Athens, 2008), 353–68; R. Krumeich and C. Witschel ‘Hellenistische Statuen in ihrem räumlichen Kontext: Das Beispiel der Akropolis und der Agora von Athen’, in A. Matthaei and M. Zimmermann (eds), Stadtbilder im Hellenismus (Frankfurt am Main, 2009), 173–226, presenting their ongoing work on the statuescape of Hellenistic Athens; S. Aneziri, ‘Kaiserzeitliche Ehrenmonumente auf der Akropolis: Die Identität der Geehrten und die Auswahl des Auftellungsortes’, in R. Krumeich and C. Witschel (eds), Die Akropolis von Athen im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Wiesbaden, 2010), 271–302. On the historical development, J. L. Shear, ‘Cultural Change, Space and the Politics of Commemoration in Athens’, in R. Osborne (ed.), Debating the Athenian Cultural Revolution (Cambridge, 2007), 91–115; on the Lykourgan honorific and dedicatory townscape, see now M. C Monaco, ‘Offrandes publiques et privées sur l’Acropole et l’Agora d’Athènes à l’époque lycurguéenne (340–320 av. J.-C.)’, in V. Azoulay and P. Ismard (eds), Clisthène et Lygurgue d’Athènes (Paris, 2012), 219–32.
(248) Wycherley, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia; Thompson and Wycherley, Agora of Athens; R. Krumeich in Stemmer, Standorte, 276–89, esp. 283–9; J. McK. Camp II, The Athenian Agora Site Guide (Princeton, 2010).
(249) Krumeich and Witschel, ‘Hellenistische Statuen’, 208–9 and n. 142: part of the base of the statue of Brutus is known (published by A. E. Raubitschek, ‘The Brutus Statue in Athens’, in Atti del terzo congresso internationale di epigrafia greca e latina (Rome, 1959), 15–21; SEG 17.75, a rather banal δήμος + accusative copula).
(251) M. Lawall, ‘The Wine Jars Workroom: From Stamps to Sherds’, in J. McK. Camp II and C. A. Mauzy (eds), The Athenian Agora: New Perspectives on an Ancient Site (Mainz am Rhein, 2009), 66–8.
(252) e.g. SEG 14.136 (public statue for Q. Lutatius).
(254) H. A. Thompson, ‘Buildings on the West Side of the Agora’, Hesperia, 6 (1937), 169–70.
(255) M. C. Monaco, ‘Contributo allo studio di alcuni santuari ateniesi I: Il temenos del Demos e delle Charites’, ASAtene, 79 (2001), 103–50. There are two attested statues, one of Eumaridas, and one of the Jewish dynast John Hyrcanus (Jos. AJ 14.8.5). There was no statue of the philosopher Philonides of Laodikeia, as often stated: IG II2 1236 (also Inscr. Eleusis 221), a decree of the Eumolpidai and the Kerykes, does discuss earlier honours from the people of Athens, but the passage usually understood as mentioning a statue (ll. 4–6, in U. Köhler’s supplement, reproduced in Inscr. Eleusis) is odd (one expects e.g. , or , which would not fit the lacuna); better , as in Bielman, Retour à la liberté, no. 56—Philonides dedicated the crowns in the shrine of Demos and Charites (perhaps [ον άνέθηκ]εν, merely the gold crown dedicated?).
(256) M. M. Miles, The City Eleusinion (Princeton, 1998): no. 22 in her epigraphical dossier is a 1st-cent. statue for an agonothete of the Eleusinia. The large base, flanked by two smaller bases, in the ‘storage’ area, might have borne honorifics. This excavated area is probably the shrine of Triptolemos, part of the City Eleusinion (but not the main shrine of Demeter and Kore): Camp, Athenian Agora, 144–7.
(257) IG II2 1039.
(258) C. Keesling, ‘Early Hellenistic Portrait Statues on the Athenian Acropolis’, in von den Hoff and Schultz, Early Hellenistic Portraiture, 141–60; Krumeich, ‘Formen der statuarischen Repräsentation’; generally, Krumeich and Witschel, Die Akropolis von Athen.
(259) Queyrel, Portraits des Attalides, 299–308; Krumeich and Witschel, ‘Hellenistische Statuen’, 189 n. 60, 209. I am not sure that the colossal statues of Eumenes II and Attalos (II?), which a storm damaged in Athens before the battle of Actium (31 BC) at the same time as the Attalid Gigantomachy on the south side of the Akropolis (Plutarch, Antony 60.2), stood next to the Gigantomachy: I follow Queyrel, Portraits des Attalides, 305, against e.g. A. Stewart, Attalos, Athens and the Akropolis (Cambridge, 2004), 323 n. 2.
(262) Pappastamatakis-von Moock, ‘Menander und die Tragikergruppe’. Pappastamatakis-von Moock convincingly locates the statue of Menander on the only suitable foundation, the narrow foundation (‘Ziller 40’) in the eastern parodos. This identification is confirmed by Dio 31.116, who mentions the statue of a bad poet, recently set up next to Menander: this explains the presence of a narrow block immediately to the west of the Menander, bearing not a stele (so Pappastamatakis-von Moock: but the narrow, deep block is not suitable for this purpose), but a statue—namely that of Q. Pompeius Capito, a Pergamene poet famed for his improvisation, as attested by a base found in front of the ‘right-hand parodos’, that is, as part of the late foundation near the western parodos, on the spot where the base of Menander was also found (A. Rhousopoulos, ArchEph (1862), 177; IG II2 3800). Papastamatakis-von Moock identifies the long base (‘Ziller 41’) next to the Menander as that of the three Tragedians; but the main source, Pausanias’ account (1.21), is not a sequence, but simply a description of the most noticeable statues, and hence the three tragedians could well have stood elsewhere. That Dio berates the Athenians for setting up the statue of an indifferent poet next to Menander, but does not mention the three tragedians, argues against the identification. Hence I propose placing the tragedians on ‘Ziller 36’, away from the long base where Pappastamatakis-von Moock places the Menander. I further expand on this matter in a forthcoming paper in Studi Ellenistici.
(263) IG II2 648, with C. Habicht, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Munich, 1979), 13–15; IG II2 657, with Gauthier, Bienfaiteurs, 80; P. Thonemann, ‘The Tragic King: Demetrios Poliorketes and the City of Athens’, in O. Hekster and R. Fowler (eds), Imaginary Kings: Royal Images in the Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome (Stuttgart, 2005), 76–7.
(264) IG II2 3845.
(265) IG II2 3775. The statue base is currently reconstructed back ‘in situ’, but I daresay the anastylosis looks slightly odd (the reconstruction is presented in A. Samara and C. Papastamatakis-von Moock, ‘Theatro tou Dionysou: Protasi timimatikis apokatastasis tis epistepsis tou analimmatos tis distikis parodou kai tou synarmozomenou se afti vathrou tou dramatikou poiiti Astydamanta’, paper delivered at the First Panhellenic Conference on Anastylosis, Thessaloniki, 2006). More seriously, this monument’s supposed date of 340 is based on unreliable sources (gathered by Snell, TGFr i. 198–9), and should be rejected (see below, appendix to this chapter), with the consequence that this is a retrospective statue, not set up in 340 (as the first statue in the theatre), but in the early Hellenistic period, after the Tragedians and Menander, as suggested by H. R. Goette, ‘Die Basis des Astydamas im sogennanten lykugischen Dionysos-Theater zu Athen’, Antike Kunst, 42 (1999), 21–5.
(266) On the Ptolemaion, S. G. Miller, ‘Architecture as Evidence for the Identity of the Early Polis’, in M. H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State (Copenhagen, 1995), 201–44.
(267) Pausanias 1.18.3–4; [Plutarch], Moralia 847d–e (statue of Demochares moved to the prytaneion).
(268) IG II2 212 (decree for Spartokos, statues of his ancestors on Akropolis and in Peiraieus; of Spartokos on Akropolis and in emporion; 347/6) SEG 25.112, same document ISE 33 (decree for Kephisodoros, statues in town and in Peiraieus, 195 BC); IG II2 1012 (statue of an epimeletes of the harbour set up by association in his archeion, late 2nd cent.); IG II2 2752 (1st-cent. statue base found in Peiraieus); Pausanias 1.1.3.
(269) Rhamnous 10 (earlier SEG 41.86).
(270) Inscriptions in Inscr. Eleusis; for instance, for decrees of soldiers stationed in the Attic forts, Syll. 485 (same document Inscr. Eleusis 196), Inscr. Eleusis 200 (perhaps), 211; Inscr. Eleusis 275, 276, 280, 1st-cent. statue bases.
(271) Two Akarnanian youths who strayed into the shrine were executed in 200 BC: Livy 31.14.7.
(273) See Guide d’Érétrie and Knoepfler, Décrets érétriens de proxénie; I owe my understanding of the Eretrias to several luminous, and illuminating, visits to Eretria with P. Ducrey and S. Fachard.
(275) SEG 32.856.
(276) I. Mylasa 110.
(277) Brélaz and Schmid, ‘Nouvelle dédicace’, 241 n. 34 (based on palaeography; note also the rare name of the honorand in IG 12.9.278, Techippos, probably the father of Philippos Techippou in the decree for the gymnasiarch Theopompos, IG 12.9.236, as noted in IG by Ziebarth). I thank S. Fachard for photographs of IG 12.9.276 and 278.
(278) There still is no complete, up-to-date study of the bases of the Asklepieion in their places and their context; neither IG 42 1 nor W. Peek’s revisions give indications in Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion von Epidauros (Berlin, 1969) and Neue Inschriften aus Epidauros (Berlin, 1972). P. Kavvadias, Fouilles d’Epidaure (Athens, 1891); To hieron tou Asklepiou en Epidavro kai i Therapeia tou Asthenon (Athens, 1900); F. Robert, Épidaure (Paris, 1935), has nothing; G. Roux, L’Architecture de l’Argolide aux IVe et IIIe siècles avant J.-C., 2 vols (Paris, 1961); R. Tomlinson, Epidauros (St Albans and London, 1983) is the most useful; von Thüngen, Exedra, has located all the exedras (and only the exedras), but distributes them throughout her work according to typology.
(281) IG 42 1.589. The statue clearly does not lie on its original stylobate; it was reused, on its rear face, for a statue of Hadrian.