The Monuments That Stood Before Marathon

7/29/2019 The Monuments That Stood Before Marathon

1/19

The Monuments That Stood before Marathon: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Archaic Attica

Author(s): James WhitleySource: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 98, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 213-230Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/506636

Accessed: 06/09/2010 12:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/506636?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/506636?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia


2/19

The MonumentsThat Stood before Marathon:Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in ArchaicAttica

JAMESWHITLEYAbstractThis paper seeks to relate the form of the Marathontumulus to both tomb and hero cultas practicedn Atticain the Archaicperiod.Distinctionsare madeamongvar-ious archaeologicalmanifestationsof hero cult and be-tween twosenses of the term herosnArchaicGreece.Thenamed warriorheroes of the epic tradition are to bedistinguished romtheanonymousheroes whose cultwasoften located n or over BronzeAge tombs.The popular-ity or prevalenceof variouskinds of hero and tombcultcan be shown to changeconsiderablybetween the eighthand earlyfifthcenturiesB.C.,partly n responseto polit-icalchange.The genealogyof the Marathon umuluscanbe traced back to the seventh- and early sixth-century

aristocraticfunerarycomplexeswithtumulus,centralcre-mation,and offering trench. Suchpractices eem to be adeliberateevocation of those described n the Iliad. Thisfact considerablyaltersour interpretationof the Mara-thon tumulus,which can now be seen as an exampleofthe appropriationof aristocraticvalues and symbolstoserve the needs of the newdemocracy.*The tumulus at Marathon is not one of the majorarchitectural achievements of fifth-century Athens.To some, therefore, it may seem a perverse choice foran exercise in art-historical explanation.' But, though

simple in form, this monument is not at all easy toexplain. It is a monument that looks both forward tothe full democracy of the late fifth century, and back-ward to the world of the Archaic aristocracy. It echoesin its design features of much earlier monuments,but, at the same time, anticipates forms of publiccommemoration that were to become current by thetime of Pericles. Its role too is ambiguous, since itserved to commemorate a battle, as a place of burial,and, in later times, as the locus of "hero cult." Herocult is a complex issue, one too often treated simplyas an aspect of Greek religion.2 This approach isclearly inappropriate in our case: the Marathon tu-mulus, no less than the Cenotaph in London, or theVietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C., is primarilya political monument, one intimately connected withcollective Athenian identity and self-esteem. As such,its genealogy, its relation to earlier and later forms ofcommemoration, burial, and tomb and hero cult, is amatter of some importance.Burials and hero cults have been popular topics inmany recent discussions of early Greece. Many schol-ars have tried to link changes in mortuary practice

* This is a revised version of a paper I gave at CorpusChristiCollege, Oxford in October 1991. I would like tothankeveryonewho contributedto the discussion hat fol-lowed,in particularChristianeSorvinou-Inwood nd RobinOsborne. For permissionto reproduceillustrations,I amgratefulto the DeutschesArchaologischesnstitut n Athensand the American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens,AgoraExcavations. wouldalso ike to thankAnthonySnod-grass, Nick Fisher, Hans Van Wees, Ian Morris,SanneHouby-Nielsen,Francoisde Polignac,CarlaAntonaccio,andone anonymousreferee of AJA for comments on earlierdraftsof thispaper,and RobinOsborne orencouragingmeto publish t. They are,of course,not to be heldaccountablefor anyremainingmistakes,omissions,or errorsof tactandjudgment.The followingabbreviations re used:Antonaccio C.M. Antonaccio, The ArchaeologyofEarly Greek"Hero Cult" (Diss. Prince-ton Univ. 1987).Clairmont C.W. Clairmont, Patrios Nomos: PublicBurial in Athens during the Fifth andFourth Centuries B.C. (BAR-IS 161,Oxford 1983).Coldstream J.N. Coldstream,"HeroCults n theAgeof Homer,"JHS96 (1976)8-17.Jeffery L.H. Jeffery, TheLocal ScriptsofArchaic

Greece2(Oxford 1990).Kearns E. Kearns, The Heroes of Attica (BICSSuppl.57, London1989).Morris I. Morris, Burial and Ancient Society:TheRise of the GreekCity-State(New Stud-ies in Archaeology,Cambridge1987).Shapiro H.A. Shapiro, Art and Cult under theTyrants in Athens (Mainz 1989).

Stupperich R. Stupperich, Staatsbegrdbnisund Pri-vatgrabmal im klassischenAthen (Diss.Westfailische Wilhelms-Universitit,Miinster1977).

Whitley A.J.M.Whitley,"EarlyStatesand HeroCults:ARe-appraisal,"JHS08 1988)173-82.' For "explaining"historicalartifacts,see in particularM. Baxandall, Patterns and Intentions: On the Historical Ex-

planationof Pictures New Haven 1984);and mostrecentlyJ. Whitley,"TheExplanationof Form:Towardsa Reconcil-iation of Archaeologicaland Art-HistoricalApproaches,"Hephaistos 1/12(1992-1993) 7-33.2 This is the approachadoptedby,amongothers,A.D.Nock,"TheCult of Heroes,"HThR 37 (1944) 141-74; andL.R. Farnell, GreekHero Cults and Ideas of Immortality(Ox-ford 1921).

213AmericanJournal of Archaeology 8 (1994) 213-30


3/19

214 JAMESWHITLEY [AJA98

-

..'" ". ,".j ..

to r~ p

"'''"l~l

(I

"",I ,i""

-B

E ,.

O

Fig. 1.Plan of the Marathonumulus.E is theofferingtrench,and A thecremationtray.(B. Stais,AM 18 [1893]49)and the appearance of hero cults to the major trans-formations that took place in the Greek world between750 and 650 B.C.3 Little interest has been shown inhow these cults change through time, however, andthe relationship of hero cult to other kinds of cult(cults to the dead, or cults to the gods) has receivedless attention than it deserves.4 In view of the consid-erable scholarly interest in the relationship betweenart, cult, and politics in Archaic Athens, this lack ofattention is surprising. The popularity and nature ofthese cults, and the way such cults change throughtime, have an important bearing on the political andsocial development of Archaic Athens.

Terms such as tomb and hero cult require somepreliminary definition (but see infra pp. 218-22). Byhero cult I mean any cult whose object of venerationwas a hero (heros), named or otherwise, but usuallyassociated with a particular locality. By tomb cult Imean any cult whose locus was a tomb, whether thattomb was recent or ancient when it became the focusof cult, and whether that cult was of long or shortduration. These two categories could overlap. Some(but not all) hero cults were tomb cults; some (but notall) tomb cults were cults of ancestors; and some (butnot all) ancestors were also heroes.5 The picture isnot, at first sight, as straightforward as some historians

3 For hero cults and the "GreekRenaissance,"ee inparticular he divergentviews of J.N. Coldstreamn Cold-stream; and in GeometricGreece London 1977) 346-48;A.M. Snodgrass,"Lesorigines du culte des heros dans laGreceantique," n G. GnoliandJ.P. Vernanteds.,La mort:les morts dans les soci6tis anciennes (Cambridge 1982) 89-105; Snodgrass, Archaic Greece: TheAge of Experiment(Lon-don 1980) 37-40; F. de Polignac, La naissance de la cite'grecque Paris1984) 127-51; Antonaccio;I. Morris,"TombCult and the 'GreekRenaissance':The Pastin the Presentin the 8th CenturyB.C.,"Antiquity 2 (1988) 750-61; andWhitley.For the significanceof changes in mortuarypractices nthe lateeighthcentury,see Morris;andJ. Whitley,Styleand

Society in Dark Age Greece(Cambridge 1991) 162-80.4 With one notable exception: F. de Polignac,"Sanc-tuaires et socidteen Attique g'0omtriqueet archaique:Re-flexion sur les criteresd'analyse,"n A. Verbanck-Pierardand D. Viviers eds., Culture et cite':L'avtnement de l'Athines

archaiqueBrussels, orthcoming)discussesmany of the is-sues raisedin this article,from a slightlydifferentperspec-tive.5 That not all ancestorswere heroes can be simplydem-onstratedbyreference o Kearns.There areover 129 namedminorheroes in ClassicalAtticawho received some kindof

cult,but there areonly 26genewitheponymoushero-ances-tors;see Kearns64-79.


4/19

1994] THE MONUMENTS THAT STOOD BEFORE MARATHON 215

H - 0 o+1.56

+ 0.50o0 o A NSK N

+So 0.OE. Oo 0

+0.35

-0.00c' ( 4

+ 0.4 0 5 10metresFig. 2. The gravecomplexat Vourva.The offering trenchis markedby the horizontalbarslabeled 0 on either side. (AfterB. Stais,AM 15[1890]pl. XIII.3)

or philologists might wish it to be. Nonetheless, herocult and tomb cult are clearly related, if complex,phenomena, which have rarely been treated together.This is a serious oversight, whose significance becomesobvious when we come to consider the Marathontumulus itself.THE MARATHON TUMULUS

In 490 B.C., the Athenians, having defeated thePersians at the Battle of Marathon, buried their wardead. The Athenian dead, 192 in all, were buried

where they fell, and covered by a great mound ortumulus, a form of burial that Thucydides at least(Thuc. 2.34.5) considered a singular honor.6 Detailsof the burial are not, as far as I know, recorded byany literary source, and we have to turn to the workof its excavators, Schliemann and Stais.7 Stais was byfar the better, and in this instance the luckier, exca-vator, and it is his account I rely on here. There seemto be three principal elements to the burial (fig. 1):1) a central cremation "tray,"containing the crematedremains of the war dead, surrounded by black-figure

6 Thucydides may have been mistaken,however: seeA.W. Gomme, An Historical Commentary on Thucydides:BooksI & III (Oxford1956)94-103; andF.Jacoby,"PatriosNomos:State Burial in Athens and the PublicCemetery nthe Kerameikos,"JHS4 (1944)37-66, esp.47: "Theburialof the Marathonomachai n the battlefield s not the excep-tion, but the rule"; but see also the discussionby W.K.Pritchett, The GreekState at War 4 (Berkeley 1985) 94-259;and Stupperich64-66, 207-208. The burial of the 192Athenians who were killed at Marathon s alludedto, butnot described,by both Herodotos(6.117.1)and Pausanias(1.29.4, 1.32.3-5).7 ForSchliemann's xcavations, ee H. Schliemann,"DassogennanteGrab der 192 Athener in Marathon,"ZfE 16(1884) 85-88. Schliemannfound obsidian,pottery ("Topf-waare"),and faience, but little to indicatethat the mound

wasindeed thepolyandrionmentionedby Pausanias.ForStais's xcavations, ee B. Stais,ArchDelt1890, 65-71,and 123-32;ArchDelt 891,34-67, and97;andesp.B.Stais,"0O 'v MCaQaOLtLTOv[og," AM 18 (1893) 46-63, esp. 49;for the vases from the trench, see ABV 38 no. 2, 393 no. 18,498 nos. 2, 9, 542 nos. 99-101, 544 no. 148, and 547 no.229. The latestvases are black-figure ekythoiof earlyfifth-centurydate. For a brief summaryof the excavations, eealsoN.G.L.Hammond,"TheCampaignand Battle of Mar-athon,"JHS88 (1968) 13-57, esp. 14-17.Pausanias'sdescription(1.32.3) is succinct: d4og; 6UE vT6J7ebL'AOrjvaltwy iYLly,i'T' Ual o'fFT &ahTv6 arntCTOvCctOav6vryv xar& &a g xThdo-rCovovoat. For fur-ther discussion, see Clairmont 95-99; and Pritchett (supran. 6) 126-29, 166-67.


5/19


....

o.

1t."

. .

7.M'-I" I'S

Fig. 3. Offering trench,Opferrinney, in the Kerameikos(AnlageXI), associatedwithgrave 11. Mound I is not shown,since it was builtoverthe graveand offeringtrenchata later stage. (K. Kfibler,Kerameikos I.1 [Berlin 1959] fig. 9, courtesyDeutsches Ar-chiologischesInstitut,Athens)lekythoi; 2) an exterior trench (which Stais called astenon), not for cremations, but apparently for otherofferings; more pottery was found in this trench; and3) a tumulus or mound over the whole. In addition,a number of grave stelae were placed around thetumulus.

Stais could not help noticing the similarity of thisarrangement to that of other tumulus/burial com-plexes he had excavated in Attica. He was remindedparticularly of the site of Vourva,8 where, again, wehave a tumulus with cremations, and an exterior of-fering trench filled with pottery (fig. 2).9 Vourva isnot, as is Marathon, a monument of the early fifthcentury. The pottery from the offering trench (andthe cremation) is early black-figure, dating probablyfrom the last decade of the seventh century or thefirst few decades of the sixth, roughly a century earlierthan the Marathon tumulus. No tumulus burials with

internal cremation trays and external offering traysare known from the early fifth century, or even thelate sixth. The Sudhfigel in the Kerameikos datesfrom the latter part of the sixth century, but has nooffering tray.'0 The grave mounds K, L, and Mgrouped around mound G in the Kerameikos" andthe Rundbauten in the same cemetery,12 all of whichdo date to the late sixth and fifth centuries, are tumuliof a sort, but much smaller than the Marathon tu-mulus, and again lack the crucial element of the of-fering trench.The Marathon tumulus thus stands out from othercontemporary structures. But perhaps there is a rea-son for this: the war dead were not simply buried, butheroized. We know from both literary and epigraphicsources that the Marathon war dead received heroichonors, at least in the first century B.C.'3 But themanner of their interment does not recall anything

8 See Stais 1893 (supran. 7) 53 for similarities.9 B. Stais, "'O T*3pog;v P viQ3," AM 15 (1890) 318-29; Stais 1890 (supran. 7) 105-12; see also discussioninF. Bourriot, Recherchessur la nature du genos: Etude d'histoiresociale ath6nienne, p6riodesarchai'queet classique (Paris 1976)913-18. Forthe vases,see M.P.Nilsson,"AttischeVasen mitTierstreifdekoration,"JdI 8 (1903) 124-28.10 For the Sudhtigel, see U. Knigge, KerameikosIX: DerSudhiigel Berlin 1976).Since shaft graves2 and 3 date tothe mid-sixthcentury,and the earliestgraves dug into themound to 510 B.C., the mound itself must have been con-

structed n the interveningperiod.There is no mentionofan offeringtray." Forthe gravemounds aroundthe edge of mound G-moundsK, L, and M-that are datableto between 500 and460 B.C.,see K.Kiibler,KerameikosII.1 (Berlin1976)63-90.12 U. Knigge, W. Koenigs, and A. Mallwitz, KerameikosXII: Rundbauten im Kerameikos(Berlin 1980).I IG II, 471 (=IG II2, 1006), line 26 reads ncT[Q]a-

yev6pOvoL : [~iit 6 It MaQca66vtLohXk] &VgQELtovrE-4dwVcVY TExaEi EVTiYLouCVo;g xarE Et6E[Cov rEXEUrtiloa-


6/19


0V/1/0/

,/-1 1~ -11

Fig.4. Sectionthrough graves n Kerameikosshowingthe relationshipbetweenOpferrinney, moundI, andgrave 11. (K. Kiibler,KerameikosVI.1 [Berlin 1959] fig. 8, courtesyDeutschesArchiologischesInstitut,Athens)

we can identify, archaeologically at least, as a herocult. Instead it recalls burial practices that were wide-spread in Attica in the seventh and early sixth cen-turies, but that had fallen into disuse by the time ofthe Battle of Marathon. The Marathon tumulus is,then, a somewhat paradoxical monument, one thatimmediately raises questions of definition: What ishero cult, archaeologically speaking? What is tombcult? How are we to make meaningful distinctionsbetween the two?TOMB CULT IN ARCHAIC ATTICA

I would like to answer these questions indirectly, bylooking at the situation at the beginning rather thanat the end of the period concerned (ca. 750-480 B.C.).In the latter part of the eighth century there wereprofound changes in both burial and cult practices inAttica. One of these was the introduction of the of-fering trench, or Opferrinne, exterior repositories ofofferings, related to burials but not burials themselves(fig. 3). Early examples, all of Late Geometric II date,include several from the Kerameikos (Opferrinnen 1and 2 and the Brandschicht fiber Grab 5114) and atleast one from the Agora, pyre XII from the graveenclosure.'5 These trenches were filled with mainly

ceramic offerings: terracotta figurines, kotylai, smalllekythoi, neck-handled amphoras, and small claycauldrons. These are not, strictly speaking, gravegoods-they are not directly associated with any par-ticular interment. Nor do they resemble the Brand-schiittung, the pyre remains that were often swept inor over earlier Geometric graves; nor again do theyappear to be the remains of a funerary meal, theperideipnon.They appear to be offerings to the dead-offerings no longer directly associated with burialsand perhaps no longer associated with the funeralceremony itself. In this limited sense, they resemblecult offerings more than they do grave goods as such.In the seventh century such offering trenches be-come a more prominent feature of the burial record,a development that can most easily be traced in theKerameikos cemetery.16 Here cremation again re-places inhumation early in the century, at least foradult graves. Grave goods, sensu stricto, are rare.Instead, cremations are placed under low tumuli,often marked by a ceramic marker, with no otherobjects close by (figs. 3-4). Outside the tumulus, andoften at some distance from it, is the offering trench(fig. 3). This is a long trench, lined with clay, withthree ridges dividing the trench into two long chan-

otLv 4n[[-]Qlg kv0EvOelag.his inscriptiondatesto the firstcenturyB.C.OnlyPausanias,writing n the secondcenturyA.D.,talksaboutherocult,when he notes(1.32.4):o!3povwTL6' of MaaOObv totouog tE oL Jcah t lV XrlVy&C-Oavov QocWagvo~udovmEg. Whether or not the Marathon-omachai were heroized in the fifth century is an openquestion, ntelligentlydiscussedbyN. Loraux,TheInventionof Athens: The Funeral Oration and the Classical City (Cam-bridge,Mass.1986)29-30, 39-41.14 See K. Kibler, Kerameikos V (Berlin 1954) 32-33, for

early Opferrinnen generally. For the Brandschicht iberGrab51, see 247, pls. 39-40; forOpferrinne1,see 234, pls.137-38 (the materialfrom grave G47, pp. 240-41, pl. 79,mayalsobelongto this);for Opferrinne2, see pl. 138.15 R.S. Young, Late GeometricGraves and a Seventh-Cen-

tury Well in the Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 2, Athens 1939) 55-67.16 K.KiUbler,erameikosI.1(Berlin1959)87-92; Morris128-37; D. Kurtzand J. Boardman,GreekBurial Customs(London1971)68-90.


7/19


Fig.5. ClaystandwithgriffinprotomesfromOpferrinney,Anlage XI, Kerameikos7013, inv. 148, cat. no. 52. (PhotocourtesyDeutschesArchiologischesInstitut,Athens)nels-what Stais had earlier called a stenon. Particularoffering trenches were associated by the excavator,Karl Kiibler, with particular interments, in discretemortuary complexes. The finds from these offeringtrenches are, in general, much richer than compara-

ble material from the graves themselves. Grave goodsare sparse, but the offering trenches are filled with arange of ceramic items that seem to have been madeespecially as funerary votives, such as an oinochoedepicting mourning women;'7 clay cauldrons, some-times with griffin protomes18 (fig. 5); and at least onethymiaterion in the form of a sphinx.'9 Moreover,most of the finest Protoattic pottery whose proveni-ence we can actually trace comes from these contexts(fig. 6).20We can, I think, quite reasonably speak of tombcult when referring to the practice of placing offeringsin these Opferrinnen, a practice that had spread tosites in the Attic countryside by the end of the seventhcentury B.C. Funerary complexes of this type, withcentral cremation beneath a mound and exterior of-fering trench, are found at Vourva21 (fig. 2) andVari.22The funerary complex at Veladineza may alsohave shared some of these features.2" Although thepeak in the popularity of this practice in the Atticcountryside seems to have been ca. 600 B.C., by thattime the practice was already in decline in Athensitself. As Ktibler observes, offering trenches becamerarer from 600 B.C. onward, and very rare fromabout the middle of the sixth century.24Tomb cult, atleast in this narrow sense, had ceased to be importantby the end of the Archaic period.TWO KINDS OF HERO, FOUR KINDS OF CULT

What then of hero cult? Here we run into problemsof definition, both of the term hero cult and the wordhero itself. Hero (heros)is a word that is notoriouslydifficult to define.25 In Archaic Greek literature, asM.L. West has pointed out, it appears to have had twoseparate senses.26To quote West:

In Homericepic the word heros s appliedratherfreelyto living men . . . in several places the most suitablemeaningis 'warrior'.... Nowherein epic is there anyhint of religioussignificance.27

17 Vase with mourningwomen and snakes,KerameikosKanne 149, cat. no. 49, see K. Kiibler,KerameikosVI.2(Berlin 1970)456-59, pls. 38-40, from Opferrinney, An-lageXI.18 Claycauldrons:see Kiibler (supran. 17) 461-64, pls.43-45, all fromOpferrinney, AnlageXI.19 See Kuiblersupran. 17)453-54, pls.32-35. Thesetoocome fromOpferrinney, AnlageXI.20 Particularlyhe pottery (the Kerameikosmugs, etc.)from Opferrinne(3,Anlage IX, see Kuibler supran. 17)427-47, pls. 10-28.21 For Vourva,see supra n. 9; for tumuluscomplexesgenerally, ee Morris136, 152-53.22 For Vari,North Cemetery,see AA 1936, 123-25; AA1937, 121-24; AA 1940, 175-77, esp. pl. 34; and BCH 61(1937)451, fig. 13. For the vases,see S. Papaspyridi-Karou-zou, AyyEda rov Avayveovvrog (ArchEph Suppl. 48, Ath-

ens 1963).23 For Veladineza, see ArchDelt 1890, 15-28; and Bourriot(supran. 9) 918-25; for earlysixth-centuryvases,see ABV16 nos. 5-6.

24 See Kuibler supran. 16) 87: "Erst m frtihen 6. Jh.werden die Rinnenseltener"and Kiibler supran. 11) 187-88:"Opferrinnen.. sindseitder Mittedes 6.Jhs.nurmehrvereinzeltzu finden"andlater,"Opferplitzeund Opfergru-ben ... sindjedochvon den Brandschtittungen icht mmersicher zu scheiden."Offering trenchesbecome rarer,andotherofferingplacesbecomelesseasyto distinguish.25 Forproblemswith the definitionof "hero," ee Kearns1-9. Forthe historiography f hero cult generally,see An-tonaccio1-29.26 M.L. West ed., Hesiod's Works and Days (Oxford 1978)370-73, esp. 370.27 West (supra n. 26) 370.


8/19


.

,: i

... ..

! I,

Fig. 6. Lid of pyxiswith chariotprocession rom OpferrinneF3,AnlageIX, Kerameikos3006, inv. 75, cat. no. 28. (K. KiUbler, erameikos I.2[Berlin1970]pl. 19,courtesyDeutschesArchiologisches nstitut,Athens)

But West goes on to say:This contrastswith the situation n later Greeklitera-ture, when a herosis someone who has died and ishonored in deathby religiousobservance.... Inscrip-tions show that this is no mere literaryuse but fullyestablishedn the languageof cult.28

And further:Its two senses, the religiousand the secular,are notderivedfrom one another,nor from a single originalsense. Each representsa particular acet of a system,

separatelydeveloped n the DarkAges.As a secularandsecularizedermfor youngwarriors,he wordwaspre-servedonly in the epic tradition.As a religiousterm itsurvivedindependentlyof epic--on the mainland?-associatedwith the honoreddeadand morelooselywithterrestrialnuminaresident n the district.29Given this distinction between the two senses of the

word heros, we would expect that cult would only beassociated with the latter, "religious" kind of hero, thehonored dead somehow resident in the land, and tiedto a particular locality. A quick glance, however, at

28 West(supran. 26)370. See also commentsof E.Rohde,Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortalityamong theGreeks,W.B. Hillis trans.(NewYork1972)114-55.

29 West(supran. 26) 373. The distinctionbetween"epic"and "cultic" eroesis alsoadvancedby G.Nagy,TheBestoftheAchaeans Baltimore1979) 114-17, 151-73. Nagy is asinsistent as West on this point: "The hero of cult must belocalbecause t is a fundamentalprincipleof Greekreligionthat his poweris local. On the other hand the Iliad and the

Odysseyre panhellenic" p. 116).Forthe applicationof thisdistinction o archaeological vidence,see A.M.Snodgrass,"TheArchaeologyof the Hero,"AnnArchStorAnt0 (1988)19-26, and Snodgrass, An Archaeologyof Greece:The PresentState and Future Scope of a Discipline (Berkeley 1987) 159-65. Some scholars, however,dispute the division betweenepic and cultic heroes; see H. Van Wees, StatusWarriors(Amsterdam1992)6-8, 314-15, ns. 5-8.


9/19

220 JAMESWHITLEY [AJA 98the kinds of archaeological phenomena that havebeen termed hero cult in the Archaic period demon-strates that the situation is not quite so clear-cut. Four,perhaps five, types of hero cult can be distinguished,some of which have their antecedents in the DarkAges. They are listed below.1) Cults over the tombs of the recently heroized(which could be classified as either tomb or hero cults).Such cults were instituted soon after the death of theperson or persons concerned, and we must presumethat the identity of the person (that is, their name ornames) was known when the cult was instituted. Wehave historical information about the cults establishedto the oikist in Greek colonies in Sicily and MagnaGraecia, and the story of the heroization of Brasidasat Amphipolis (Thuc. 5.11.1) gives us some idea abouthow such oikist cults may have begun.30 Such histor-ical examples have clearly colored the interpretationof certain tomb cults in the Archaic period, in partic-ular the so-called heroon just by the West Gate atEretria. Here several warrior graves and children'sgraves were covered over and a triangular monumentwas then built on top. Traces of ash and charcoalindicate that some kind of cult took place at this site,whose importance has been continually emphasizedby Claude Berard.3" Dark Age antecedents for this

type of cult may be seen in the Mitropoleos plot onNaxos, and, less plausibly to my mind, in the so-calledheroon at Lefkandi (where, apart from other prob-lems with the identification, there is no evidence forcult).32 Such cults cannot, however, easily be distin-guished on archaeological grounds from other tombcults, that is to say family observances at tombs (cultsof the dead) and the veneration of ancestors, unlesswe know that the person concerned was in fact hero-ized (which in these cases we do not). Nonetheless,there are no obvious parallels to this kind of cult inAttica in the Archaic period, unless we wish to classifyall tomb cults, such as those in the Kerameikos, ashero cults of this type.

2) Cults to named heroes, particularly to heroeswho figure prominently in the Iliad and the Odyssey.Despite what we might expect from West's strictures,there are a number of cult sites that seem to havededications to epic heroes. We have early dedicationsfrom the Polis cave in Ithaca (bronze tripod caul-drons),33 and some early (Late Geometric) votive de-posits from the Agamemnoneion at Mycenae.34 Butthe inscriptions that identify these shrines as those ofOdysseus35 and Agamemnon36 respectively are very-late. It is only from the Menelaion (or rather theshrine of Helen and Menelaus at Therapne, near

30 For oikist cults generally,see I. Malkin,Religion andColonization in Ancient Greece (Leiden 1987) 189-266.31 C. Berard, Eretria III: L'Her6on a la Porte de l'Ouest(Bern 1970);Berard,"Topographieet urbanismede l'Er&-triearchaique: 'Her6on," n EretriaVI (Bern 1978)89-95;and Berard,"Recuperer a mort du prince:heroisationetformationde lacite," n Gnoli and Vernant(supran. 3) 89-105.The distinctionbetweenAttic ombcultsandtheheroonatEretriahas beensuccinctlyummarizedbyA.M.Snodgrass(pers.comm.):"offerings n the trenches in seventh-/sixth-centuryAttica are ... not chronologically eparablefromthe date of the burial or burials;whereas at Eretriaat leastthere is a detectablelapse of time. There is some case forsaying hatthesepractices epresent,respectively,mourningand heroization."See also discussionof the Eretriaheroonin Antonaccio328-36.32 For the Mitropoleos plot, Naxos, whichbeginsca. 900B.C.,see V.K.Lambrinoudakis,Veneration f AncestorsnGeometricNaxos," in R. Higg, N. Marinatos,and G.C.Nordquist eds., Early Greek Cult Practice (Stockholm 1988)235-46.ForLefkandi,Toumba(datable o ca. 1000-950 B.C.),seeM.R.Popham,E. Touloupa,and L.H. Sackett,"TheHeroof Lefkandi,"Antiquity 6 (1982) 169-74; AR 1980-1981,7; AR 1981-1982, 15-17; AR 1982-1983, 12-15; and AR1983-1984, 17;and P.G.Calligas,"HeroCult in EarlyIronAge Greece," n Hagg et al. (supra)229-34. The "heroon"interpretations widely disputed;see A.J.Mazarakis-Ainan,"EarlyGreekTemples:TheirOriginandFunction,"nHagget al. (supra) 105-19, esp. 116; Mazarakis-Ainan,Contri-

bution~'atude de l'architecture recquedesagesobscurs,"AntC1 4 (1985)5-48, esp. 6-9. Forothercriticisms, ee dePolignac supran. 3) 92 n. 146;J. Whitley,"SocialDiversityin DarkAge Greece,"BSA 86 (1991)341-65, esp. 349-50;and Antonaccio336-44.33 Forthe Poliscave,seeS. Benton,"Excavationsn IthacaIII: The Polis CaveI,"BSA35 (1934-1935) 45-73.34 For the Agamemnoneionat Mycenae,see J.M. Cook,"Mycenae1939-52 III: The Agamemnoneion,"BSA 48(1953)30-68; and Cook,"TheCult of Agamemnonat My-cenae," Figa; Avroviov KEpay6droAAovAthens 1953)112-18.35 The earliestinscriptiono Odysseus rom the Poliscavedates to the second or firstcenturyB.C.;see Benton(supran. 33) 54-55. There are earlier,Archaicinscriptions,butthese appear to be dedicationsto Athena and Hera; seeJeffery230-31, 234 no. 3; andIG IX.i, 653; see also discus-sion in Antonaccio240-44.36 Forthe earliestdedicatorynscriptionso Agamemnonfrom Mycenae, ee Cook,BSA48 (supran. 34) 64 nos.Jl-J3, two of whichhe datesto the fourth,andone to the fifthcenturyB.C.The datingof the fifth-centurynscription,andindeed the earlyidentification f thecult withAgamemnon,canbequestioned,however: eeC.MorganandT. Whitelaw,"Potsand Politics:CeramicEvidence for the Rise of the

ArgiveState,"AJA95 (1991)79-108, esp. 88-90, who havearguedthatthe earliestdedicationsat the Agamemnoneionare in fact dedications o Hera;see alsodiscussion n Anto-naccio236-40.


10/19

1994] THE MONUMENTS THAT STOOD BEFORE MARATHON 221Sparta) that we have a built shrine, and early votiveinscriptions (of seventh- and early sixth-century date),first to Helen, and then to Menelaus.37 Two pointsshould be underlined here. First, all these early heroato epic heroes have, as shrines, earlier and strongerassociations withfemale figures, goddesses and "hero-ines" rather than the warriors of the Iliad.38Secondly,while Odysseus, Agamemnon, and Menelaus are allheroes of epic, they are also local heroes, with partic-ular associations with the territory in which they werevenerated. They would therefore fit as easily intoWest'ssecond category as into his first. There is, more-over, very little evidence that epic heroes were widelyvenerated in Attica before the very end of the Archaicperiod.39

3) Cults to named heroes, but not to heroes whofigure prominently in the epic tradition, nor heroeswho have been recently (or distantly) heroized. Eithersuch heroes have a local following, but are almostunknown in myth, or they are minor figures in epic.In either case, they tend to be associated with a par-ticular locality; they are local heroes. There is someevidence that such local heroes were venerated inAttica in Archaic times, but the evidence is, to say theleast, ambiguous. The mention of Erechtheus in both

the Iliad (2.547) and the Odyssey(the pukinon domonof 7.81) may indicate that there was a cult to Erech-theus practiced on the Acropolis from an early date,but there is little archaeological evidence to supportthis.40 Similarly, the discovery of kouros bases, ironweapons, and a seventh-century votive plaque depict-ing a ship found at Sounion has naturally promptedspeculation that there was an early cult of Phrontis inthe temenos of Athena near Sounion (Phrontis wasMenelaus's helmsman who drowned just off the capeof Sounion, and is thus a local hero). But the evidenceis again far from conclusive.41 Equally, though thereis much evidence for early activity in the Academy,including some Dark Age deposits that Nicolas Cold-stream thinks are votive, there is to my mind little thatwe can definitely associate with an early cult to Aka-demos in Early Archaic times.42

Not the recently heroized, nor named local heroes,nor the heroes of epic seem to have received muchattention in Archaic Attica, judging from the archae-ological record. There is, however, a fourth categoryof hero cult that figures very prominently in the ar-chaeology of Archaic Attica:

4) Cults in or over Bronze Age, and sometimes EarlyIron Age, tombs.43 In a sense, then, these cults are

37For the Menelaiongenerally,see A.J.B. Wace, M.S.Thompson, and J.P. Droop, "Excavations at Sparta 1909:The Menelaion," BSA 15 (1909) 108-57; and H.W. Catling,"Excavations at the Menelaion, Sparta, 1973-76," AR 1976-1977, 24-42, esp. 35-37. For inscriptions, see AR 1975-1976, 14; AR 1976-1977, 36 figs. 25-27 (to Helen); and AR1976-1977, 36-37 fig. 28 (to Menelaus); see also H.W. Cat-ling and H. Cavanagh, "Two Inscribed Bronzes from theMenelaion, Sparta," Kadmos 15 (1976) 145-57; see also dis-cussion in Antonaccio 244-53.

The "Menelaion" may be a misnomer for this site. Theearliest inscribed dedications are to Helen, and the earliestmention in our literary sources (Hdt. 6.61.3) speaks of ahiron of Helen at Therapne. It is only by the time of Pau-sanias that the "Helenion" has become the naos of Menelaus(Paus. 3.19.9).

38 A point forcibly made by de Polignac (supra n. 3) 130-31 n. 12. See also references in ns. 35 and 37 supra.39 There are only a few dedicatory inscriptions to Hera-kles, from Mount Hymettos: see M.K. Langdon, A Sanctuaryof Zeus on Mount Hymettus(Hesperia Suppl. 16, Athens 1976)97-98; the cult of Herakles is identified by inscriptions no.9 (p. 15) and no. 173 (p. 41), on sherds dating from theseventh to the early sixth centuries B.C. Herakles is not ahero who figures prominently in Homeric epic.40 See I. Iakovide6, H MvxrivaiFxr Axjp6roAtg (Athens1962) 186 n. 361 for the Submycenaean vases apparentlyindicating Dark Age cult. For early mention of Erechtheus,see Hom. II. 2.546-56 and Od. 7.81. For a skeptical view ofthe evidence, see Coldstream 16.41 For Phrontis, see Hom. Od. 3.279-83; C. Picard,"L'her6onde Phrontisau Sounion,"RA series6, 16 (1940)

5-28; and H. Abramson, "A Hero Shrine for Phrontis atSounion?" CSCA 12 (1979) 1-19; for criticisms of this iden-tification, see Antonaccio 254-56.

42 For the Geometric "Sacred House" in the Academybuilt over an earlier, Early Bronze Age one, see F.D. Stav-ropoullos, Prakt 1958, 5-13; and ArchDelt Chr. 16B (1960)34. For the deposit of Late Protogeometric vases, see Prakt1958, 8-9, pl. 6, with discussion in Coldstream 16. Forepigraphical evidence for later cult, see generally Kearns157. 0. Alexandri, AAA 1 (1968) 101-103 records a horosstone for the Academy dating to ca. 500 B.C. The well-known black-figure sherd fragment from the Agora(P10507) that may depict the local hero Akademos cannotbe regarded as direct evidence for cult; see E. Vanderpool,"Some Black-Figured Pottery from the Athenian Agora,"Hesperia 15 (1956) 120-37, esp. no. 26, 133-34, pls. 2-3;and J.D. Beazley, "Some Inscriptions on Greek Vases: VI,"AJA 58 (1954) 187-90, esp. 187 no. 1.

43 Supra n. 3, esp. Coldstream, Antonaccio, and Whitley.Apart from Attica, it is the deposits from the Argolid thathave been most discussed. See C.W. Blegen, "Post-Mycen-aean Deposits in Chamber Tombs," ArchEph 100 (1937) 377-90; J.C. Wright, "The Old Temple Terrace at the ArgiveHeraeumand the EarlyCultof Hera in the Argolid," HS102 (1982) 182-201, esp. 193; Morgan and Whitelaw (supran. 36); Antonaccio 30-118; Whitley 178-81; and most re-cently C.M. Antonaccio, "Temples, Tombs and the EarlyArgive Heraeum," Hesperia 61 (1992) 85-105. Many of thesetomb cults undergo a revival in the fourth century or later;see S.E. Alcock, "Tomb Cult and the Post-Classical Polis,"AJA 95 (1991) 447-67.


11/19

222 JAMESWHITLEY [AJA98tomb cults, but unusual ones, since there is a gap intime between the last (usually Mycenaean) intermentand the first (Late Geometric or early seventh-cen-tury) offerings. Moreover, there are some indicationsthat these cults were thought of as hero cults, thoughthe identity of the hero venerated could not be firmlyestablished. Indeed, what little epigraphic evidencewe do possess suggests that no attempt was made tofurnish these heroes with a name, an identity. Aninscribed sherd from above Grave Circle A at My-cenae, dating to the Classical period, simply mentions"the hero."44 Many possible contenders in the epictradition could have been associated with the GraveCircle, had one actually been desired. Instead, thehero remained an anonymous figure. Indeed, it isremarkable how few dedicatory inscriptions comefrom later deposits in Mycenaean tombs-in fact, withthe one exception noted above, there are no dedica-tory inscriptions of Archaic date from such contexts.Associated graffiti and dipinti do not make any ref-erence to the object or person venerated.45 Such ret-icence is in complete contrast to the attitude of ArchaicGreeks when it came to making dedications to thegods.46 Nor can lack of writing skills be invoked as anexplanation for this apparent reluctance to nameanonymous heroes.47 It could be argued that the oc-cupants of these tombs were originally not thought of

as heroes at all, but a previous race of humankind.The Silver Race of Hesiod's Works and Days wasthought to dwell beneath the ground (hypochthonioi)and were entitled to timeof some kind.48If this is so,then it only serves to underline the very real differ-ence between heroes of epic and heroes of cult. Evenwhen, in the Classical period, such numina had beenassimilated into the category of heroes, they remainedanonymous figures, to be treated quite differentlyfrom heroes of epic (see infra p. 226).49

Offerings in Mycenaean tombs are common in lateeighth- and early seventh-century Greece, particularlyin the Argolid and Messenia, and in some cases theofferings are of sufficient quantity that we arejustifiedin speaking of cult. In Attica, the tholos tomb atMenidhi and the oval tholos tomb at Thorikos re-ceived numerous offerings, and a chamber tomb atAliki Glyphada a single Late Geometric pyxis. AlikiGlyphada is not, to my mind, an example of cult ofany sort.50 But Thorikos and, particularly, Menidhiare important cult sites, which merit our closest atten-tion.CULTS IN ATTICA IN THE EARLIER ARCHAICPERIOD

Hero cults of this last kind seem to begin in Atticain the Late Geometric period. At Menidhi (fig. 7), the

44 Forthe inscription rom GraveCircleA, see H. Schlie-mann, Mycenae: A Narrative of Researchesand Discoveries atMycenaeand Tiryns London 1878) 115;Jeffery 174no. 6;IG IV, 495. From Schliemann'saccount this does seem tohave been found within Grave CircleA, despiteJeffery'sbelief (173 n. 3) that it had "strayed."45 E.g., the signature of Sophilos on a louterion fromMenidhi;see P.Wolters,"Vasenaus MenidiI,"JdI13(1898)13-28.46 There are over 200 dedicatory nscriptions o Athenafrom the Acropolisthat date to before 480 B.C.; see A.E.Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis (Cam-bridge,Mass.1949).Althoughmost of thesedate to the latesixthand earlyfifthcenturies,some are of seventh-centurydate.47 There is no doubt that Attica was one of the moreliterate regions of Archaic Greece; see S. Stoddart andJ. Whitley,"TheSocialContextof Literacyn ArchaicGreeceand Etruria,"Antiquity 2 (1988)761-72. Fairlywidespreadliteracy sevident fromtheseventhcenturyonward,udgingfrom the Hymettosevidence;see Langdon(supran. 39) 9-50. This makes the absence of dedicatoryinscriptionstoheroesof any kind all the moreremarkable.48 For the SilverRace,see Hesiod (Op. 127-42); see alsoWest (supran. 26) 186-87: "The Silvermen are identifiedwithcertaindead who, though respectedas if in some waypowerfulor dangerous,do not walkthe earthbut arecon-fined to the soil in whichthey lie. They lackpersonal den-

tities: had they been identifiedwith particularmen of thelegendarypast,Hesiodwouldhave had to attach hem tohisfourth race. There were numerous ancient graves whichpeople treated withsuperstitiousveneration withoutknow-ing whosethey were."Antonaccio373-74, 386-87 n. 54 isawareof West'sarguments,but is not convincedbythem.49 The onlygood informationconcerninganonymoushe-roes in Classicalimes comes from Attica.Twenty-fiveanon-ymousheroes received some kindof cult in ClassicalAttica,according o Kearns139-207. Such heroes are usually den-tifiedby theirlocality,e.g., "hero of the saltmarsh"Kearns144)or "heroesof the plain" Kearns 193).50 For AlikiGlyphada,see I. Papadimitriou,Prakt1955,96-97, grave6, pl.28e;see also Antonaccio145-46. Perhapsrelated o theseofferingsin Mycenaeanombswasthe mark-ingoff of seven LHIIIcist tombsbya wall nLate Geometrictimes, later thought to be the tomb of the Seven againstThebes (Paus.1.39.2;Plut.Thes.29.4-5). For the archaeo-logicalevidence,see G.E.Mylonas,Prakt1953, 82-87; My-lonas, To Avrtx6v NEXQOtraOElovr1 EAiEYtvogAthens1975)vol. 2: 153-54, vol. 3: pls.k and 145b;and Mylonas,Eleusis and theEleusinian Mysteries(Princeton 1961) 62-63;see alsodiscussion n Whitley176;and Antonaccio139-45.Whether or not these tombswere so identifiedas earlyasthe eighth century B.C., there is, apart from some LateGeometric and later pottery (not illustrated), ittle or noevidence for culthere.


12/19


Fig. 7. The dromos of the Mycenaeanholos tomb at Meni-dhi. (Photoauthor)earliest pottery found in the dromos of the tholostomb dates to the Late Geometric II period (whenOpferrinnen first appear in Athens);51 at Thorikos,the earliest finds are Protoattic and Protocorinthian

pottery of the mid-seventh century B.C.52 Here Ar-chaic votive deposits from the oval tomb were foundin a layer immediately above some relict Mycenaeandeposits. There is nothing like an offering trench ateither site, though a bothros and an "offering stone"were found at Thorikos. Nonetheless, a number ofpoints of similarity exist between tomb cults in offer-ing trenches and hero cults in or over earlier, chieflyMycenaean tombs. These similarities concern: 1) thecharacter of the finds from tomb and hero cult (inparticular the hero cult from Menidhi); 2) the ambi-guity of the term, and the occasional difficulty in ourdistinguishing between these two kinds of cult; and3) the duration of the cult in Mycenaean tombs andin offering trenches near Archaic tombs.Both the tomb at Menidhi and the tumulus com-plexes of late seventh- and early sixth-century Atticashow a marked preference for certain vessel forms.The so-called louterion is a particularly common shapeat Menidhi, and may even have been preferred forcultic reasons.53 Louteria are also common in the lateseventh-/early sixth-century funerary complex atVari.54Similarly,certain iconographic themes seem tohave been characteristic of both contexts. Chariotscenes are common on vases from Menidhi, particu-larly louteria.55 They are also frequently found onvases from seventh-century Opferrinnen in the Ker-ameikos.56 More important perhaps is the fact thatmost of the Orientalizing pottery found in seventh-century Attica comes from these two contexts. Mostof the finest Protoattic pots whose provenience we canactually trace were used as grave markers over adultgraves, deposited in offering trenches, or placed inthe dromos of the Menidhi tholos tomb. The richnessof Orientalizing pottery from these contexts is in

5' FortheArchaicdeposits n the Menidhi omb,see H.G.Lolling,DasKuppelgrabeiMenidi Athens 1880),esp. Furt-wangler38-50; P. Wolters,"Vasenaus Menidi II,"JdI 14(1899) 103-35. For the earliestGeometricpottery,see alsoP. Kahane,"IkonologischeUntersuchungenzurgriechisch-geometrischenKunst,"AntK 16 (1973) 114-38, esp. 134.For the vaseby Sophilos,see Wolters(supran. 45). Forthedepositas a whole, see also discussion n Antonaccio132-36.

52 For the depositsfrom tholos tomb I at Thorikos,seeJ. Servais,Thorikos : 1963 (Brussels 1968) 29-41. Thepottery(butnot the Daedalicfigurines)has now been pub-lished by M. Devillers, An Archaic and Classical VotiveDepositfrom a Mycenaean Tomb at Thorikos (Miscellanea Graeca 8,Ghent1988).The findsconsistof very ittleProtoattic,manyProtocorinthianndCorinthianaryballoi, ubgeometric ky-phoi, and black-and red-figure ekythoi.The earliestfindsdatetoca.650 B.C.,and the latest o themid-fourthcentury,

though the bulk of the finds date to between 550 and 425B.C.The findsfrom Thorikoshave none of the "aristocratic"connotationsof the finds from Menidhi.53 Forlouteria, ee D. Callipolitis-Feytmans,es"louteria"attiques ArchDelt uppl.6, Athens 1965),esp. 43-65 nos.

M1-M13 for louteria from Menidhi. Argumentsfor thesignificanceof louteria n cult are presentedby H. Kenner,"DasLuterion m Kult,"OJh29 (1935) 109-54.54 For outeria romVari,see Callipolitis-Feytmanssupran.53) 19no.11,20no. 13,28nos. 1-2,and 33 no. 1. Whetheror not these louteria come from offering trenches is notclear,but I think it is likely.55 Forchariotscenes,see supran. 43; and Wolters(supran. 51) 109figs. 12-13 and 126fig. 31.56 E.g.,the lids of the pyxidesKerameikosno. 75 (cat.no.28) and Kerameikosno. 76 (cat.no. 27), both withchariotscenes,andbothfromOpferrinneP3,AnlageIX.See Kiubler(supran. 17)pls. 17-19.


13/19

224 JAMESWHITLEY [AJA98marked contrast to the paucity of such finds frommajor sanctuaries and from the domestic sphere.57Most pottery from peak sanctuaries in the seventhcentury is Subgeometric, with only the rare Oriental-izing sherd;58there is relatively little Protoattic potteryfrom the Acropolis, as Sarah Morris has pointed out.59The Agora well groups are filled with much Subgeo-metric and other domestic rubbish, but little of Pro-toattic date, and even less with Orientalizing themes.60Most of the pottery from children's graves in thisperiod is Subgeometric.61Such observations have led me to suggest elsewherethat the production and deposition of Protoattic pot-tery was, in part at least, determined by the needs ofthese two ritual occasions. The restriction of Orien-talizing pottery to these two contexts can be seen asthe revival, in highly modified form, of a principle ofsocial rationing that had existed in the ninth century--a rationing of the use of "the Orientalizing" to occa-sions that were, at once, liminal and high-status, re-moved from day-to-day living.62 The elite groups ofArchaic Attica (the aristocracy) more or less monop-olized the use of Orientalizing pottery.63If this inter-

pretation is correct, the significance of Orientalizingpottery, and of the contexts in which it is found, isthen out of all proportion to the actual quantities ofmaterial deposited. Neither the Menidhi tholos northe Kerameikos Opferrinnen were areas of publiccult. But the quality of the pottery found there andthe similarities in iconography and style of the vasesin both contexts make it more reasonable to supposethat what we are witnessing here are the rituals of anaristocracy, the Athenian Eupatridai.64 The impor-tance of such private, familial rituals is underlinedwhen we consider the Athenians' apparent lack ofconcern for public cult in this period. Unlike nearbyPeloponnesian states, such as Corinth or Argos, thevotive deposits from seventh-century Attica are verypoor, particularly in metals. A few griffin protomesand the odd Oriental and Egyptian import are theonly objects from the Athenian Acropolis that can beconfidently dated to the seventh century.65 Athenstook no part in early developments in temple con-struction-apart from the column bases on theAcropolis, it is doubtful if there is any seventh-centuryAttic architecture worth the name.66 Energies that in

57 See J. Whitley,"ProtoatticPottery:A ContextualAp-proach," in I. Morris ed., Classical Greece: Ancient Historyand Modern Archaeologies (Cambridge, forthcoming). Therehasbeen a revivalof interestin the archaeologyof seventh-century Attica: see S.P. Morris, The Black and White Style(NewHaven 1984);R.G.Osborne,"ACrisis n Archaeolog-icalHistory?The SeventhCenturyB.C. in Attica,"BSA 84(1989) 297-322; and most recently,S. Houby-Nielsen,"In-teractionbetweenChieftainsand Citizens? thCenturyB.C.BurialCustoms n Athens,"ActaHyperborea (1992) 343-74.

58 For the Hymettos peaksanctuary, ee Langdon (supran. 39), esp. 11-41, 67-70; for the Tourkovounipeaksanc-tuary, see H. Lauter, Der Kultplatz auf demTurkovuni (Berlin1985).

59 See Morris(supran. 57) 9 ns. 38-39, withreferences;see also B. Graef and E. Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von derAkropolisu AthenI (Berlin1925)xxxi, 23, 34-43; there are71 Protoatticsherds, nos. 344-414. The "relatively" eremeans "relativeto the numbers of black- and red-figurevases" rom the Acropolis.60 For the Agora well groups, see E.T.H. Brann, "Pro-toatticWellGroupsfrom the AthenianAgora,"Hesperia30(1961) 305-79; and Brann, Agora VIII: Late Geometric andProtoattic Pottery (Princeton 1962).61 See Whitley supran. 57) and Houby-Nielsen supran.57). Examplesof children'scemeteriesin seventh-centuryAttica nclude the cemeteriesat Phaleron,Eleusis,and Tho-rikos.ForPhaleron, ee R.S.Young,"Gravesromthe Phale-ron Cemetery,"AJA 46 (1942) 23-57. For Eleusis, seeMylonas supran. 50);and G.E.Mylonas,O rpworoarrtz6dAM opew5g rig EAe5uatvog Athens 1957). For Thorikos, seeJ. Bingen et al., Thorikos (Brussels 1968)47-86; Thorikos

II (Brussels1967)34-36; ThorikosII (Brussels 1967) 31-56; Thorikos V (Brussels 1969) 72-108; and ThorikosVIII(Brussels1984)72-150.

62 See Whitley(supran. 57); for the ninth-centurypat-tern,see Whitley1991(supran. 3) 116-37.63 The notion that tumulusburial,withOpferrinne,wasreserved for an elite stratumof society depends on one

accepting the force of the demographic arguments pre-sentedby IanMorris o the effect thatonlya smallsegmentof the population s buriedin a mannerthat is archaeologi-callyvisiblein the seventh or sixth centuryB.C., and thattheadultburialswe have excavatedareprobably hoseof anelite. See Morris 99-101 for demographic arguments,and151-55 for the exclusiveuse of gravemarkers.For a recentrestatementof thesearguments,see I. Morris,"Burning heDeadin ArchaicAthens:Animals,Men and Heroes," orth-coming in Verbanck-Pierard nd Viviers(supran. 4); andMorris,"Everyman'sGrave,"n A. Boegehold and A. Sca-furo eds., Structures of Athenian Identity (Baltimore, forth-coming).The onlyserious alternativeexplanationoffered isthatAttica ufferedadroughtduringthelateeighthcentury,whosecatastrophicdemographiceffects lastedfor nearlyacentury; eeJ. Camp,"ADrought ntheLateEighthCenturyBC,"Hesperia 8 (1979)397-411.

64 OntheEupatridai s anAthenianaristocracy,eeArist.Ath. Pol. 13.2 and discussionby N.G.L. Hammond,"LandTenure in Athens and Solon'sSeisachtheia,"HS 81 (1961)76-98, esp. 78. On the seventh-century onditions n Atticasee Arist. Ath. Pol. 2. Arguments in favor of the cult atMenidhi being "aristocratic" re presented by Snodgrass1980(supran. 3) 70; and Whitley176-77.65 See Whitley(supran. 57); and Morris 1984 (supran.57) 99 n. 48.66 For column bases on the Acropolis,see C. Nylander,"Die sog. mykenischenSiulenbasen auf der AkropolisinAthen,"OpAth (1962) 31-77. A bronzegorgoneionis the

only artifactassignable o the pre-sixthcentury temple;seeShapiro19 ns. 7-8.


14/19


. . . . .

k

.4

Fig.8. Protoattic otivedepositfrom the Agora,AgoraH 17:4.(E.T.H.Brann,AgoraVIII: LateGeometricndProtoattic ottery[Princeton1962]pl. 30, photo courtesyAmericanSchool of ClassicalStudiesat Athens,AgoraExcavations)Corinth or Argos were concentrated in the embellish-ment of major, state sanctuaries to the gods were, inAttica, dispersed among the numerous minor cults tothe honored dead and to the honored, if still anony-mous, heroes.Tomb and hero cult also shaded into one anotherin the seventh century. The problem of distinguishingbetween the two is, perhaps, at its most acute in thecase of the Protoattic votive deposit in the Agora(fig. 8).67 Here various Protoattic votives were foundwithin an oval (possibly Late Geometric) structuredirectly over an EG I child's grave. This can be con-sidered a tomb cult in that it was focused on a grave,but a grave that was 200 years old by the time the cultwas instituted. For a number of reasons it may betreated as a cult to an anonymous hero. Two hundredyears is too long a time for the identity of the personburied to be remembered in a society whose collectivememory was still largely oral. (Indeed, Aeschines com-

mented on how easily the proper attribution of namesand places could be forgotten, even in the more lit-erate culture of the fourth century.68) Furthermore,the character of the votive finds-terracotta shieldsand horsemen-recalls many of the finds from thetholos tomb at Menidhi.69 Unlike Menidhi, however,there is little that is monumental enough in the tombto lead a later worshipper to associate it with a remote"heroic age"-it is a very mundane burial. Moreover,while some of the finds may be reminiscent of Meni-dhi, others are equally reminiscent of some of thefinds from the earliest Opferrinnen, particularly the"sacrificialpyres" from the Agora grave plot.70Tomb cults (or at least cult activity in offeringtrenches) and the hero cult at Menidhi are both prom-inent features of the archaeological record of Atticain the seventh century B.C. After 600 B.C., however,both practices decline.7 Offering trenches fall out ofuse during the course of the sixth century, particularly

67 D. Burr,"AGeometricHouseand a ProtoAtticVotiveDeposit,"Hesperia2 (1933)542-640; and H.A. Thompson,"Activity n the Athenian Agora 1966-67," Hesperia37(1968)36-76, esp.58-60. The pottery rom thechild'sgraveis in factEarlyGeometric ratherthanProtogeometric;eeJ.N. Coldstream, Greek GeometricPottery(London 1968) 11.

68 Aeschin. 1.125-27. Of course, Aeschines is speakingfor rhetorical ffect,but his commentsareno lesspertinentfor that.69 Cf. the shields from Menidhi(Wolters1899 [supran.51] 119, fig. 25) with those from the Agora deposit (Burr[supra n. 67] 609-14); and the horsemen from Menidhi

(Wolters1899 [supran. 51] fig. 26) with those from theAgora(Burr[supran. 67] 614-21). For a discussionof this,see R. Hagg,"Gifts o the Heroes in Geometricand ArchaicGreece," n T. Lindersand G. Nordquisteds., Giftsto theGods Boreas15,Uppsala1987)93-99.70 For materialfrom the Agora "sacrificialpyre,"seeYoung(supran. 15)55-67.71 This generalizationdoes not, however,seem to applytoThorikos; eeDevillers(supran. 52)esp.75-76. The findsfromThorikosare not asobviouslyaristocratics thosefromMenidhi,and it is perhaps ess surprising hatthe cult herelastslongerin the changedconditionsof ClassicalAthens.


15/19

226 JAMESWHITLEY [AJA98after 550 B.C. There are few, if any, votives of sixth-century date in the Agora deposit. The latest potterythat comes from Menidhi dates to before 460 B.C.;the last datable vases are one by the Brygos Painterand one by the Pan Painter." As these cults declined,other kinds of hero cult appeared--cults to epic he-roes, or heroes of the new democracy. The result ofthis process was a complete reversal of the Archaicpattern.THE LATE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PATTERN

In Archaic Attica, neither the recently heroized norepic heroes, and few if any other named heroes, figureprominently in cult. But by the Classical period (or atleast by the fourth century B.C.), judging from thelists given by Emily Kearns, there were, at the veryleast, 165 named heroes who received some kind ofcult, and only 25 anonymous heroes.73 Of these, byfar the majority are local heroes, usually associatedwith particular places and sometimes with particulartombs. But there are also a number of figures fromthe epic tradition, some of whose cults appear to beparticularly important. Aias received a cult both atSalamis and in the Athenian Agora;74 cults to Hera-kles had been established both at Kynosarges and atMarathon by 490 B.C., judging from Herodotos;75and Theseus, Oedipus, and even Menelaus receivedsome kind of cult.76 Moreover, some new cults were

introduced to the recently heroized, an example beingthe one established to the Tyrannicides, Harmodiosand Aristogeiton.7 The prominence of named heroesin the Classical period did not mean that cults toanonymous heroes disappeared. New cults to anony-mous heroes were established in the Athenian Agorain the fifth and fourth centuries, when buildingoperations uncovered ancient, chiefly Dark Age,tombs-tombs that often then became the focus ofcult.78 But this fact does not alter the significance ofthe decline of the long-established, aristocratic cultsthat had been so prominent in the seventh centuryB.C.

There is little to suggest that heroes of epic, andother named heroes, became important objects of cultbefore the latter part of the sixth century B.C. Sucha view is not revolutionary. It can be easily accom-modated within the now generally accepted accountof political and religious change in Archaic Attica: aseventh-century Attica dominated by a conservative,perhaps reactionary aristocracy; and a sixth centuryseen as the major period of reorganization and cen-tralization of state cults. Such matters have receiveddetailed attention from John Boardman79 and AlanShapiro,s" among others. Peisistratos and his sonswere, in all likelihood, responsible not only for theintroduction of new festivals, such as the Panathenaia,but also for embarking on large-scale building pro-

72 Red-figure fragments by the Brygos Painter (ARV21469 no. 40bis)and by the PanPainter ARV2 558 no. 142)date to ca. 460 B.C. The qualityand imageryof these findsare well in keeping with the aristocraticnatureof the culthere.73SeegenerallyKearns,esp. 139-207. Mostof theinscrip-tions by whichthese heroes are known are fourth centuryin date,so perhapsthe contrast s a littleoverdrawn.74ForAjax/Aias, ee Kearns46, 80-91, 141-42; Shapiro154-57; and U. Kron, Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen: Ge-schichte, Mythos, Kult und Darstellungen (AM-BH 5, Mainz1976)171-76, esp. 172-74. The popularityof scenesof Aiason mid-sixthcenturyblack-figurevases (particularlyhose

by Exekias)is not necessarilyevidence for a cult of Aiashavingbeen institutedat this time.Examplesof suchscenesinclude "thesuicide of Ajax,"Boulogne 558, ABV 145 no.18;and "Ajaxand Achillesplayingdice,"Vatican344,ABV145 no. 13.75 Forcultsto Herakles,see S. Woodford,"Cultsof Her-acles in Attica," n D.G. Mitten,J.G. Pedley,andJ.A. Scotteds., Studies Presented to George M.A. Hanfmann (Mainz1971) 211-25; see also Shapiro 157-63. Only the cults atKynosarges,Marathon,and perhaps Meliteseem to havebeen establishedbefore the end of the sixth centuryB.C.There is some epigraphicevidencefor the cultof Heraklesat Marathon,mentionedby Herodotos(6.116),namelyaninscription,datable to ca. 500 B.C., regulatinggames inhonor of Herakles; ee IG I3, 2;E.Vanderpool,"AnArchaicInscribedStele from Marathon,"Hesperia11 (1942) 329-

37; Vanderpool,"The Deme of Marathonand the Hera-kleion,"AJA70 (1966)319-23, esp. 322-23. For the cult ofHerakleson Hymettos,see supran. 39.76 See Kearns 117-24, 168-69 (Theseus); 50-52, 189,208-209 (Oedipus);and 185 (Menelaus).77For Harmodios and Aristogeiton, see Kearns 150.Their cultwaslocated either in the Agora,wherethey hadstatues,or in the Academy,where they were buried. Fortheir presencein the Agora, see Paus. 1.8.5; Ar. Lys.633;R.E. Wycherley, Agora III: Literary and Epigraphical Testi-monia(Princeton1957) 93-97; and H.A. Thompson andR.E. Wycherley, Agora XIV: The Agora of Athens: The His-tory, Shape and Uses of an Ancient City Center (Princeton1972) 155-60. For the tomb in (or on the road to) theAcademy, ee Paus.1.29.15.

78 E.g.,G.V.Lalonde,"AFifth-CenturyHieronSouthwestof the AthenianAgora,"Hesperia37 (1968) 123-33; La-londe, "AHero Shrine n the AthenianAgora,"Hesperia49(1980)97-105; H. Thompson,"SomeHero Shrines nEarlyAthens," in W.A.P. Childs ed., Athens Comes of Age: FromSolon toSalamis Princeton1978)96-105; see alsoThomp-son and Wycherleysupran. 77) 119-21.79Boardmanhas largely concentratedon the politicalsignificanceof the cult and iconographyof Herakles;seeJ. Boardman,"Herakles,Peisistratosand Sons,"RA 1972,57-72; and Boardman,"Herakles,Peisistratos nd Eleusis,"JHS 95 (1975) 1-12.80 Shapiro.


16/19

1994] THE MONUMENTS THAT STOOD BEFORE MARATHON 227grams t theOlympeion, leusis, ndtheAcropolis.8sThattheyalsopromotedhecultof thePanhellenic,epichero Herakless onlytoo probable.82s it thenmerecoincidencehatoffering renches egin o fallout of usein the timeof Solonand all butdisappearbythe fallof the Peisistratids?lthoughhere s noliteraryvidenceo supportheview hatSolon,Pei-sistratos,rCleisthenespecificallyutlawedhekindof funerarycult we can observein the offeringtrencheswhichwouldnotnecessarilye coveredbylegislation egulatingunerarydisplay),83ll the ar-chaeologicalvidence eems osuggesthat he sixth-andearlyfifth-centuryeorganizationsf cultwereincompatibleith uchprivate, rfamilial, evotions.Bythe end of thesixthcentury,ults o majorheroeswerewellestablished,nd Cleisthenes'eformsalsoinvolved reorganizationf herocults.84 enepon-ymousheroeswere chosenfor the new 10 tribes.Namedandusuallyocalheroeswerepromoted,nd

"tribal" cults instituted.85The Tyrannicides, Harmo-dios and Aristogeiton, were elevated to the status ofthe "liberators of Athens," and received heroic honorsfrom the state.86 A more subtle change can be seen inthe gradual elevation of Theseus to the position ofprimacy he enjoyed by the early years of the fifthcentury.87 The new order, the new democratic state,required new heroes and new cults.THE MARATHON TUMULUS RECONSIDERED

In this light, the practices evident at Marathon ap-pear doubly paradoxical. The war dead died defend-ing the new, Cleisthenic democracy-indeed, as theMarathonomachaithey became its most characteristicrepresentatives.88 But the kind of burial they receivedrecalled nothing so much as the old, pre-democraticmanner of aristocratic burial; the cult that was theirdue revived practices that had been in steady declinefor the past century (fig. 1). Is then the Marathon

81 For an account of the building programsunder thePeisistratids, see J.M. Hurwit, The Art and Culture of EarlyGreece, 100-500 B.C.(Ithaca,N.Y. 1985)234-53; T. LeslieShear,Jr., "Tyrantsand Buildingsin ArchaicAthens," nChilds(supran. 78) 1-15; see also Shapiro18-47, 67-83,and 112-17.82 See Kearns 117-23; Shapiro 157-63; see also Board-man 1972, 1975 (supran. 79).83 For funerary legislation,see Stupperich71-86; and

now also R. Garland,"The Well-OrderedCorpse:An Inves-tigationof the Motivesbehind GreekFuneraryLegislation,"BICS 36 (1989) 1-15, esp. 3-7. ContraGarland, ee I. Mor-ris, "Law,Cultureand FuneraryArt in Athens, 600-300BC,"Hephaistos 1/12(1992-1993) 35-50.84 That Herodotos(5.66, 5.69-70) was well awareof thepoliticalsignificanceof the reorganizationof hero cults isshown, not so much in what he says about the AthenianCleisthenes,but in his discussionof his namesake,Cleis-thenes of Sikyon(Hdt. 5.67-68), who replacedthe cult ofthe uncongenial "Argive"Adrastoswith that of the Thebanhero Melanippos,whose bones wereduly"translated"romThebes to Sikyon.85 Forthe eponymousheroes,see Kron(supran. 74) 13-

31, esp. 27-28; and Kearns 80-91. There is a widespreadbelief that Aristotle(Ath.Pol. 21.6) knewof over 100 herocults thatexistedin Attica n the Late Archaicperiod,fromwhich Cleisthenes chose 10 eponymousheroes. Aristotle's(orpseudo-Aristotle's)xactwordsareTaig6c v aig ;holl-FEvJEU1v04toVgEXTv QOXQLt0VTOExaTOVQXQCyETyV,oiug&veiEevi HuvO1a xa. It is true that an archegeteswasnormallya hero, but might equallywell be an ancestor,oran individualwho was the focusof the kindof cult we findin the KerameikosOpferrinnen.86 It has been suggested that it was Cleisthenes who delib-eratelypromoted the idea that the slayingof HipparchosfreedAthensfromtyranny,andCleistheneswho was instru-mental nelevatingheTyrannicidesothestatus fheroes;see R. Thomas, Oral Tradition and WrittenRecordin ClassicalAthens(Cambridge1989) 257-61, esp. 259-60: "The sus-

picionarisesthatCleistheneshimself... fosteredthe tyran-nicidesas symbolsof his new constitution"; ee also C.W.Fornara, "The Cult of Harmodius and Aristogeiton," Phil-ologus 114 (1970) 155-80; and E. Kearns,"ChangeandContinuity in Religious Structures after Cleisthenes," nP. Cartledge and F. Harvey eds., Crux: Essays Presented toG.E.M. de Ste. Croix Exeter 1985) 189-207. For the popu-larityof Harmodiosand Aristogeitonas democraticheroes,see D.L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford 1962) 474-75nos. 893-96. For the location of theircult,see supran. 77.This policywith regardto Harmodios and Aristogeitonwouldcertainly it in witha view of Cleisthenesas a central-izer,a creatorof publiccults fromprivateones, as indicatedin Arist. Pol. 1319b,19-27. For a discussionof Cleisthenes'overall intentions with regard to cult, and hero cults inparticular, see P.J. Rhodes, A Commentaryon the AristotelianAthenaion Politeia (Oxford 1982) 258-60.

87 For the gradualelevationof Theseus, see in particularHurwit (supra n. 81) 311-19; Shapiro 143-49; and Kearns117-23 and 168-69. Theseus was the first Athenian herowe know whose bones were "translated," in this case fromSkyros to Athens by Cimon in the early fifth century (Plut.Cim. 8.6-7); for a discussion see A.J. Podlecki, "Cimon,Skyros and 'Theseus' Bones',"JHS 91 (1971) 141-43. Thetranslation of bones was common in other parts of Greecein the Late Archaic period: Melanippos's bones were movedto Sikyon from Thebes by the tyrant Cleisthenes (Hdt.5.67.2-3); and the Spartans brought back Orestes' bonesfrom Tegea to Sparta by stealth (Hdt. 1.67-68). The idea,however, that heroes were there to protect the polis is per-haps one that only became popular in Athens during theLate Archaic period. See E. Kearns, "Saving the City," inO. Murray and S. Price eds., The Greek Cityfrom Homer toAlexander (Oxford 1990) 323-44.

88 For the Marathonomachai as exemplary figures for theAthenian demos, see Thomas (supra n. 86) 224-26. Thereare numerous references to the Marathonomachai in Aris-tophanes (Ach. 181; Nub. 986).


17/19

228 JAMES WHITLEY [AJA98tumulus a deliberate evocation of a pre-democraticpast? There is perhaps another way of looking at it.As Anna-Maria D'Onofrio has pointed out, aristo-cratic burial practices had already changed markedlyduring the course of the sixth century, from about600 B.C. The complexes of mound, cremation, andoffering trench, often crowned by a marker (whichshe calls, for convenience, a sima), had been graduallyreplaced by wayside memorials, which frequently hadinscriptions addressing a passerby, asking them toremember the person buried therein-a mnima.89Isthen the Marathon tumulus an evocation of not somuch pre-democratic as pre-Peisistratid practices,and a repudiation of the too-recent past? Temptingas this explanation may be, it does not work. TheMarathon tumulus incorporates features of both thesima (in its sheer size) and the mnima (it was sur-rounded by grave stelae, of a kind that would nothave been uncommon under the Peisistratids9g).

Perhaps the Athenians who erected this monumentwere unaware, or at least barely conscious of, theseresonances, which only appear paradoxical to the ar-chaeologist. The Marathon tumulus, its cremations,stelae, and offering trench, may represent nothingmore than an attempt to create an imposing anddurable monument, while at the same time trying toaccommodate both half-remembered ancient prac-tices and current forms of honoring the dead. Thisview holds that most cultural phenomena are inexpli-cable, and attempts at explanation vain. Is then theMarathon tumulus essentially meaningless?91 Is itsapparent similarity to earlier funerary forms purely

coincidental? I think not, and a clue to its meaning isagain provided by the two senses of the word heros.As West noted, the cultic and the epic senses of theword are unrelated. Cults in Mycenaean tombs mustbe classified as cults to cultic, not epic, heroes. Whatthen of tomb cult? Cremation and burial beneath atumulus are practices described in the Homericpoems. Both Patroklos and Hector are cremated, andtheir remains placed beneath a mound.92 The tombof Ilos, the eponymous hero-ancestor of Ilion, is some-times referred to as a sema, and once as a tymbos,andis a prominent landmark in many battle scenes in theIliad.93 It is then not unreasonable to associate thepractice of placing cremated remains beneath a tu-mulus with Homer's heroes, the heroes of epic. AsJ.M. Cook argued some time ago,94the spread of epicmay have been responsible for the popularity of thesepractices among the aristocracies of Archaic Greece.Tomb complexes with central cremation beneath amound, such as we find first in the Kerameikos andthen elsewhere in Attica, may then be seen as anallusion to epic burial practices, and perhaps also anevocation, in material form, of the epic sense of theword heros. Such an evocation would certainly haveheld attractions for many members of the Greek ar-istocracy.The epic sense of the term heros also implies "war-rior." In the Iliad, warriors usually die in battle. Cre-mation beneath a tumulus might well be thought tobe an appropriate honor for those who died in com-bat, at any period in Greek history. Certainly the stateburial of warriors on the field of battle, and the erec-

89 See A.M. D'Onofrio, "Aspetti e problemi del monu-mento funerario attico arcaico," AnnArchStorAnt 10 (1988)83-96; and generally, S.C. Humphreys, "FamilyTombs andTomb Cult in Ancient Athens: Tradition or Traditionalism?"JHS 100 (1980) 96-126. The distinction between sima andmnima that D'Onofrio makes (and which I follow) is not aphilological one, but simply an archaeological shorthand fordescribing the change in function of Archaic funerary mon-uments, a change from tumuli crowned by a marker, mon-uments that could be seen from a distance, to waysidememorials, which were meant to be viewed from the road,and whose inscriptions were meant to be read. The wordsima continued in use to designate the second type of mon-ument, as many inscriptions attest; for example, the grave-stone of Phrasikleia (Jeffery 78 no. 29); and the gravestoneof Smikythos (F. Willemsen, "Archaische Grabmalbasen ausder Athener Stadtmauer," AM 78 [1963] 118-22).90 Stelae are known both from Pausanias's description(1.32.3) and from Schliemann's excavations; see Schliemann(supra n. 7) 88: "ich fand ... unmittelbar unter der Ober-flache, das Bruchstuick eines Wohlbehauenen und polirtenMarmorblock, welcher zur Basis irgend eines Denkmals ge-

h6rt haben mag." The presence of a marble grave markerat Marathon is an indication that Archaic grave statues maywell have lasted into the fifth century; on the date of thelatest Archaic grave slabs, see now U. Knigge, "Ein Jung-lingskopf vom Heiligen Tor in Athen," AM 108 (1983) 45-56.91 No one has actually claimed that burial customs aremeaningless. But, until recently, there has been a very skep-tical attitude among many classical archaeologists as to howmuch meaning we are able to read out of the evidence; see

esp. Kurtz and Boardman (supra n. 16) 18-19.92 Funeral of Patroklos (Hom. II. 23.249-57); of Hector(Hom. II. 24.790-803). See also A. Schnapp-Gourbeillon,"Les funerailles de Patrocle," in Gnoli and Vernant (supran. 3) 77-88.93 For the tomb of Ilos, see Hom. II. 10.415, 11.166,11.371-72, 24.349. See also discussion in T. Hadzisteliou-Price, "Hero Cult and Homer," Historia 22 (1973) 129-44.94 Cookin Fgeag (supran. 34) 112-18. The relationshipbetween the popularity of Homer and the seventh-centuryfashion for tumulus burial is another question discussed byI. Morris, "Burning the Dead" (supra n. 63).


18/19

1994] THE MONUMENTS THAT STOOD BEFORE MARATHON 229tion of a mound or sima to mark where they fell, wasa common practice in Late Archaic and Early ClassicalGreece.95 If the Marathonomachai are to be seen aswarrior heroes, then the cremation of the war deadand their burial beneath a tumulus are features thatare not as difficult to explain.Some support for these suggestions may come froman examination of Attic funerary iconography in thesixth century, particularly in the so-called High Ar-chaic period of the late sixth and early fifth centuries.Alan Shapiro has argued that many funerary repre-sentations in this period have some kind of heroicreference.96 Referring to funerary iconography ingeneral, Shapiro suggests:

... the principal mpulsebehind most of these repre-sentations-specificallythose associatedwith the tombsof men-is the heroizationof the dead.By"heroization"I do not mean that the dead are turnedinto objectsofcult or chthonicdemi-gods. . . but ratherthattheyarelikened to the heroes whose aretj was celebrated n theHomericpoems.97In other words, the male, aristocratic dead in LateArchaic Athens are represented as heroes of epic, notof cult. There is thus a certain continuity in the asso-ciations of aristocratic burial practice in sixth-centuryAttica-a continuity of heroic reference. Whereas inthe seventh century the idea of the epic hero was

evoked by the use of tumulus burial and cremation,98in the sixth various forms of heroic iconography cameto the fore. Depictions of funeral games early in thecentury,99 and warrior grave stelae and kouroi in itslatter part,'00 are ways in which this heroic idea areplayed out. It is not then surprising that many ofthese sixth-century representations that appear toShapiro to have heroic connotations are found in andaround the sites of seventh-century funerary com-plexes with tumulus and offering trench, such asVourva'01 and Anavyssos.'02If much of the history of aristocratic funerary icon-ography and funerary practice can be seen as theplaying out of the idea of the epic warrior hero invarious visual, architectural, and sculptural forms-the constant seeking of new ways in which the heroicideal could be evoked to honor the aristocratic dead-how does this help us to interpret the Marathon tu-mulus? It perhaps makes the presence of both a tu-mulus and various grave stelae easier to understand.Both were means by which the Marathonomachaicould be explicitly compared to the heroes of epic,"03heroes whose aretj now serves the polis, not them-selves.'04 Even so, there are still features that mustappear to us to be a little out of place. Why, forexample, is there an offering trench? To say thatexceptional battles require exceptional honors, and atumulus alone is not sufficient, does not explain why

95There are, however,certainlyLateArchaicprecedentsfor the Marathontumulus.The Athenianswho died at abattle at the EuriposRiver in Euboea in 506 B.C. seem tohave been buried where they fell, and a marker,a sima(tumulus?),placedoverthem,a factpreserved nanepigramattributed o Simonides; ee D.L.Page,Epigrammata raeca(Oxford 1975) 9 no. II, lines 85-86; see also Stupperich206-207. For other possibleprecedents,seeJacoby(supran. 6) 44-45; Clairmont87-94; and Pritchett(supran. 6)153-66; see also discussion n Stupperich67-70 and 206-24.96 See H.A. Shapiro,"The Iconographyof Mourning nAthenianArt,"AJA95 (1991)629-56, esp. 631-44.97Shapiro(supran. 96) 630. For Homeric/heroic efer-ences in Archaicfunerarypractices, ee Stupperich62-64.98 And perhapsalso evoked by certainiconographic ea-tures. Scenes of individualcombat(monomachiai)re quitecommon on pottery found in the Kerameikosofferingtrenches,e.g., on Kerameikosnv. 73 cat. no. 20, fromOp-ferrinneP3,AnlageIX; see Kiibler(supran. 17)pls. 10-11.Such scenes are perfectlyin keepingwith the heroic ideal,the herosas warrior.99See generallyShapiro(supran. 96); for depictionsoffuneral games, see L.E. Roller,"FuneralGamesin GreekArt,"AJA85 (1981) 107-19.100For grave stelae, see G.M.A. Richter, TheArchaicGrave-stonesofAttica London 1961)no. 23 (20-2 1, fig.86),no. 27

(22 figs. 83-85), and no. 33 (24 fig. 95); for kouroi, seeRichter, Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths3(London 1970) nos.63, 136,and 165.101For Vourva,see L.H. Jeffery, "The Inscribed Grave-stones of ArchaicAttica,"BSA 57 (1962) 115-53, esp. 137no. 44, NM81a (theinscribedbase);G.M.A.Richter,Korai:Archaic Greek Maidens (London 1968) 58-59 no. 91; andArchDelt1890, 103 no. 19.102 For Anavyssos, ee Jeffery (supran. 101) 143-44 no.57 (NM4754 + 3851);Richter1970 (supran. 100) 118-19no. 136;Jeffery (supran. 101) 143 notes that the "wholeareais veryrich in graves,"andmanytumuliwere notedbyE. Curtius andJ. Kaupert,KartenvonAttikaXVII (Berlin1887). Although there is no certaintythat the Anavyssoskouros and other inscribedgravestoneslisted by Jeffery(supran. 101) 142-46 come from these gravemounds,theprobabilityhattheydo is high.103 It is noteworthy hat the associationbetweenburial na tumulus or mound (sima)and the epic hero lasted wellintothe fifthcentury,asevidencedbyAeschylus'sChoephoroi(lines 351-53, 722-24), a playusuallydatedto 459 B.C.104 Fora differentview of thesignificance f the Marathontumulus,see Shapiro (supran. 96) 644-45. For an accountof howthevaluesof theepicheroweretransformed o servethe needs of the democraticpolis, see N. Loraux,"MourirdevantTroie, tomberpour Athenes: De la gloire du h6rosi l'id6ede la cit6," n Gnoliand Vernant(supran. 3) 27-43.


19/19

230 J. WHITLEY, THE MONUMENTS THAT STOOD BEFOREMARATHONthis feature was chosen, and not another. We are stillleft with the paradox that, in honoring the defendersof the new democracy, the Athenians revived practicesthat were once the preserve of the old, pre-democraticaristocracy. This revival is more than mere nostalgia,more than a sneaking admiration for aristocratic su-periority and display. There were simply no othersymbolic forms available to the new democracy otherthan those that evoked aristocratic, and heroic, prow-ess. Aristocratic forms had to be "collectivized," ap-propriated by the community as a whole for public,i.e., state, purposes. Attention has recently beendrawn to how, later in the fifth century, words likekalokagathiawere to change their meaning to suit theneeds of a radical democracy.'15 The Marathon tu-mulus effected a similar but quieter transformation.It is perhaps no coincidence that aristocratic, funerarykouroi and marble grave stelae are much rarer after490 B.C., almost disappearing entirely after the Per-sian Wars. The new democracy could allow only onekind of warrior hero. This surely marks the decisive

involvement of the democratic polis in matters offunerary display.106The Marathon tumulus, despite the simplicity of itsform, is far from unambiguous in its meaning. Itstands "betwixt and between" the symbolic order ofthe Late Archaic aristocracy and the demands of thenew democracy, demands that were eventually to leadto the evolution of a new symbolic form, the demosionsima.'07 If, for archaeologists, the tumulus at Mara-thon can come to represent the complexities sur-rounding the term hero cult, it, more than any othermonument, also reflects the often contradictory feel-ings that the Athenians of the early fifth century mayhave held toward their pre-democratic past.

SCHOOL OF HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGYUNIVERSITY OF WALESCOLLEGE OF CARDIFF, P.O. BOX 909CARDIFF CF1 3XUWALES, UNITED [email protected]. UK

105 See discussion nJ. Ober,Mass and Elite in DemocraticAthens(Princeton1989) 289-92 on the transvaluation fvalues. I am grateful to H. Van Wees and Ian Morris forhelpingme to clarify my thoughtson this matter.106 This isthegeneralargument n Morris,nowelaboratedfor the fifth centuryand later periods in I. Morris,Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge1992) 128-55. But it is also an argument that is in agreement,not only with the interpretation presented here, but with the

general arguments of Ober (supra n. 105) and Loraux (supran. 13).107 On the central importance of the demosion sima, seePaus. 1.29.4; Jacoby (supra n. 6); Clairmont, esp. 29-45;and Stupperich 4-31. Humphreys (supra n. 89) 96-126 has

argued, convincingly to my mind, that the form of the publicceremony in the Kerameikos had a decisive effect on funeralsand funerary cult in later Classical Athens.

The Monuments That Stood Before Marathon

Documents

Transcript of The Monuments That Stood Before Marathon