Marion Meyer
Abstract
The Athenians Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who killed one of Peisistratos’ sons, and the Athenians who fought at Marathon have in common that their performance suited the interests of subsequent generations so much that their history is clouded by tales constructed in favour of these interests. In fact, the very terms tyrannoktonoi and Marathonomachoi1 are part and testimony of legends that turned historical persons into local heroes, and not only in the metaphorical sense. The making of these myths was the topic of two excellent monographs, written by the historians Vincent Azoulay (on the Tyrannicides, 2014; English translation in 2017) and Michael Jung (on the battles of Marathon and Plataiai as lieux de mémoire, 2006). As an archaeologist, I concentrate on the physical and visual aspects of the mythmaking.
The Tyrannicides
Harmodius and Aristogeiton murdered Hipparchus in 514 BC for personal reasons; the Athenians did not get rid of tyranny until 510 BC when Hippias left the city after a Spartan invasion.2 It took some more years until, after a stasis, the political situation in Athens stabilized and the Cleisthenic reforms of 508/507 BC had a future.3 Yet, Harmodius and Aristogeiton became the faces of this crucial period in Athenian history and quite literally so. Statues of both men were set up. We only know that they were made of bronze, by the well-known Athenian sculptor Antenor, and looted by Xerxes in 480 BC.4 We do not know when5 and where they were installed6 nor what they looked like.7
Two new statues, made by Kritios and Nesiotes as substitutes for the stolen ones, were erected in the Agora in 477/476 BC; Aristotle, Pausanias and Timaios Sophistes specify their location; the Marmor Parium their date.8 These made it into the archaeological record; they were depicted in Greek images and copied in Roman times (Fig. 1).9
D-DAI-Rom 84.3301 (photo Schwanke).
Fig. 1: Reconstruction of the Tyrannicide group of 477/476 BC, with plaster casts of several Roman copies. G.Qu. Giglioli 1949. Rome, La Sapienza, Museo dei Gessi inv. 161.
With the replacement group the Athenians demonstrated that they had regained control of their city. But why had they decided to display statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton in the first place? What did they intend to say about them and what do the statues tell about those who had them made? Any assumption about Antenor’s group must remain speculative, but for the second group we have some clues: their date, location and looks.
These figures are known as the first honorific statues, a completely new function for statues beyond their traditional votive and funerary uses.10 Recently, V. Azoulay and C. Keesling challenged this view as anachronistic. According to Azoulay, who scrutinized the literary sources directly or indirectly relevant for the group, this unique, innovative monument eludes a classification (as votive, cultic, funerary or honorific) and was not perceived as honorific until the fourth century BC.11 According to Keesling, the habit of awarding statues as an honor did not come up until the late fifth/early fourth century BC; Harmodius and Aristogeiton were represented as cultic heroes.12 The controversy points to the decisive question: Which motivations led to the erection of this statue group? The fact that both men had paid for their attack on Hipparchus with their own lives (Ath. Pol. 18.4) facilitated interpretations and appropriation of the images for various interests.13 For which purpose were the statues made, what were they supposed to achieve? Statues of mortals had been set up in sanctuaries and on graves, but there was no tradition of ‘commemorative monuments’ outside the necropoleis.14
As we know so little about the first statues we have to concentrate on the substitutes of 477/476 BC. What do these statues tell about the two men?
They do not tell what happened in 514 BC – unlike two images on early Classical Athenian vases. On a stamnos produced c. 475 BC (shortly after the sculptures),15 Hipparchus, reaching out to Aristogeiton who stabs him with a dagger,16 looks back to Harmodius who brandishes his sword for a blow. All three men wear a himation and a wreath (as they would have at the Panathenaic procession). On a fragmented skyphos painted c. 460/450 BC (with name labels), either the lost figure of Aristogeiton already struck Hipparchus as the tyrant is shown falling to the right or the victim shies away from Harmodius who approaches from the left, his arm raised for the blow.17
In the statue group (Fig. 1), the victim is missing,18 and the protagonists are naked. The sculptures owe much to the tradition of Archaic images that were meant to characterize figures instead of showing them in their incidental visual appearance. We see a youth, rushing for attack, brandishing his sword, and a striding bearded man, with his body in an upright position. He is ready to thrust his sword, but his most conspicuous gesture is the extended left arm, with a piece of cloth, as if to protect the youth.19
With their naked bodies and the pronounced distinction of age and behavior – the daring posture of the youth and the more cautious one of the bearded man – these two figures archetypically embody a couple of erastes and eromenos (as Harmodius and Aristogeiton were according to Thucydides who sees this relationship as crucial for their decision to kill Hipparchus as a reaction to personal matters of desire, jealousy and honor).20 These statues, however, leave Archaic statues behind. Exploiting the new possibilities of the Classical style they do not concentrate on potential capacities as Archaic kouroi did but demonstrate ad oculos what can be done by men with trained bodies and the decision to act.21 They visualize an attack. Numerous scholars have drawn attention to previous and subsequent representations of fighters in the pose of Harmodius.22
The statue group does not show Tyrannicides as such but two men, attached to each other, in a coordinated act of attacking. This was how the Athenians intended to memorialize Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Both men became a legend not for what they had actually achieved but for what could be achieved if people with proper intentions acted like these two were shown acting. The proper intentions were filled in by the Athenians, successively.
In songs sung at private symposia Harmodius and Aristogeiton were praised as tyrant slayers and credited with having made the Athenians isonomoi. These skolia are probably the earliest evidence for an appreciation of the Tyrannicides23 – and of isonomia. Before isonomia became an equivalent of democracy (first attested by Herodotus),24 ‘equality in law’ was the opposite of tyranny (as the tyrant was above the law) and therefore Tyrannicides were praised by aristocrats as well as (later) by democrats.25
We do not know when the cult for the Tyrannicides as the founding heroes of isonomia or demokratia was introduced. Harmodius and Aristogeiton received enagismata (sacrifices) by the polemarch who also organized the funeral games for the war dead (first attested in the Athenaion politeia 58.1, dated c. 330 BC), and they were given timai ‘equal to the heroes and the gods’ with libations (spondai) accompanying the offerings (thysiai) in all sanctuaries (first mentioned in the year 343 BC, Dem. 19.280).26 They were also praised by songs at the Panathenaia (Philostr. VA 7.4), as J. Shear pointed out.27 Shear dated the establishment of the cult in the last decade of the sixth century BC and argued that the enagismata were not offered during the Epitaphia (at the Tyrannicides’ state memorial, a cenotaph in the Kerameikos),28 as the war dead, who were served by the same polemarch, did not receive enagismata either, but thysia,29 but that they were part of the Panathenaia. However, unlike the war dead, Harmodius and Aristogeiton had not fallen in battle, and enagismata, in Classical times, were the normal sacrifices to the ordinary dead (presumably performed at the tomb).30 Unlike the war dead (whose names were not repeated every year), both men continued to be venerated as two individuals. The difference of sacrifice might have acknowledged just that difference in cult.31 I would therefore prefer to read the sources as referring to separate ceremonies (enagismata at the cenotaph,32 songs – and possibly sacrifices, but not by the polemarch – at the Panathenaia, and spondai as additions to thysiai for other recipients).
When the Athenians had established a democratic government, the Tyrannicides were taken as fighters for freedom33 and defenders of the constitution. Since the mid-fifth century BC, their descendants were granted the highest honors the city had to give to living persons, sitesis (public meals) and prohedria (theater seats in the first row).34 The repetitive presence of the descendants at these occasions perpetuated the honors for Harmodius and Aristogeiton and reinforced their commemoration.
Their public images, the statue group in the Agora, became a symbol of democracy. The Panathenaic prize amphorae for the first Panathenaia after the overthrow of the Thirty in 403/402 BC showed the group on the shield of Athena.35 When in 394 BC the family of Dexileos emphasized that their hippeus had died at the age of 20, too young to have been involved with the oligarchs, they included a chous with the images of the Tyrannicides in his cenotaph, in an attempt to stress their (and his) support of democracy.36
We see how the Athenians successively appropriated Harmodius and Aristogeiton for their own interests. By crediting these two fellow citizens with the end of tyranny and the introduction of isonomia the Athenians created a myth that suppressed the decisive role of the Spartans in the expulsion of Hippias and the subsequent years of stasis in Athens. The initiative taken by two citizens – this was just how the Athenians would have liked tyranny to have ended. However, the statues were not primarily retrospective or commemorative. They were adhortative.37 T. Hölscher and R. Di Cesare pointed out that they were placed near the location where the Athenian citizens would decide about ostracism.38 The Agora was also the place where one could see and read stone inscriptions of decrees passed in the late fifth and fourth century BC in order to forestall the establishment of a tyranny. These decrees explicitly stated that it was a patriotic duty to kill anybody who overturned the democracy and aimed at a tyranny, thus calling for more tyrannicides.39 In the later fourth century BC, Lycurgus emphasizes that only the Athenians have the habit to honor agathoi andres by setting up statues of good strategoi and of the tyrannicides in the Agora.40
I claim that the statue group in the Agora, with its physical presence in a prominent public space, played a decisive role in the making of the Tyrannicides’ myth.41 As a proof of recognition of Aristogeiton’s and Harmodius’ arete it was a demonstration of honor (which justifies the term ‘honorific statues’) and it was a model to follow.42
The Marathonomachoi
The Athenians who fought at Marathon did save their city; they were commemorated for what they had actually achieved. So, what’s the myth? The battle of Marathon became a myth as the Marathonomachoi turned from lucky victors into models of fighters, at a time when a new kind of warfare had been successful, but at high costs. This mythmaking started after the end of the Persian wars, after four more battles had been fought in 480 and 479 BC.43
After the battle in 490 BC, the dead were cremated and buried on the spot, according to common practice.44 For the 192 fallen Athenian citizens a huge tumulus was erected and stelai were put up, with all their names listed according to their phylai.45 Recently, the stele for the phyle Erechtheis was found in Herodes Atticus’ villa in Eva Loukou on the Peloponnese.46 A four-line epigram praises the men who, outnumbered, fought the Medes and died, crowning Athens. The names of the 22 fallen members of the phyle are arranged in a way to mirror the disposition of fighters in the phalanx – every line leaves enough space for the letters of the following line to fill that space, but at a short distance, thus creating a dense net of diagonal lines.47 The stele does not only convey who fell but also how they fought!
In Delphi, the Athenians dedicated statues of the ten Eponymous heroes as akrothinia of the battle and displayed them next to their Treasury.48 In Athens, the annual festival for Artemis Agrotera became the official memorial day for the battle, including the sacrifice of 500 goats49 – a number recalling the 500 members of the Cleisthenic boulé. As M. Jung pointed out, right after 490 BC, the Athenians were keen to link their victory to the impact of the Cleisthenic reforms.50
After the end of the Persian wars, the Athenians honored their war dead with a monument that was at least 5 m long (Fig. 2). A base with epigrams51 supported slabs that must have listed the names of the fallen (as the verses refer to them with demonstrative pronouns).52 This monument was erected outside the Dipylon gate, in the area later known as the location of state monuments for the war dead.53 Of the verses written along the top of the base, only those on block A are (partly) preserved. They praise those who, fighting on foot and (on something else), saved all Hellas from slavery. More epigrams, inscribed by a different person into the center of the blocks (and partly preserved on blocks A and C), celebrate the men who defended the city outside the gates and expelled the Persian army – an obvious reference to the battle of Marathon. A. Matthaiou claims that all the verses celebrate Marathon, and that the monument is a cenotaph for the Marathonomachoi.54 I follow those who take the first epigram as a reference to the campaign of 480/479 BC that actually saved all Hellas (and, in the Athenians’ perspective, this was due to the victory at Salamis).55 At any rate, this monument attests either the exclusive or the additional commemoration of the Athenians who fell at Marathon and were buried elsewhere, on the battlefield. It might be the inaugural war memorial in the Kerameikos, to be followed by monuments erected at the actual tombs of the war dead (who were brought back home and buried outside the city gates).56
after: Matthaiou (1988), 122 Fig. 2.
Fig. 2: Reconstruction of the monument with the “Marathon epigrams” by M. Korres.
A few years later, a painting of the battle in the Stoa Poikile on the Athenian Agora57 and a statue group of Miltiades with Athena and Apollon in Delphi, placed close to the entrance of the sanctuary, featured the battle’s strategos and might have been commissioned by Cimon, who tried to vindicate his father Miltiades after he had lost the support of the Athenians (and his life).58
The demos erected a victory monument on the battlefield of Marathon, in the mid-fifth century BC. Tropaia were supposed to be spontaneous, ephemeral manifestations of victory. Now a huge Ionic column, more than 10 meters high, was erected, as the base for a statue group.59
In the next generation the term ‘Marathonomachoi’ is attested for the first time, in Aristophanes’ comedies (Ach. 181; Nub. 986).60 In the play The Clouds (Nub. 961–999, performed in 423 BC), the Dikaios Logos contrasts the education and the simple outfit of the generation of the Marathonomachoi with the impertinent behavior and the luxurious garments of the youth of his time. What have the fighters of 490 BC to do with proper speech or clothing? They embody the good old days; they serve the nostalgia for the good old times, reaching far beyond military virtues (‘Let’s make Athens great again’). In his play Lysistrate (626–635; performed in 411 BC) Aristophanes ridicules old men who, claiming to be the experts of war, pretend to stand in for (youthful!) Harmodius and, shoulder to shoulder with Aristogeiton, fight tyranny (by smacking one of the rebellious women right in the jaw).61 The joke would not have worked had it not been built on an established cliché.
We see that in the course of the fifth century BC, at a time when the power and wealth of the Athenians depended and relied on their fleet, the hoplites of Marathon turned from historical defenders into paradigms of warriors. The battle of Marathon became the mother of all battles, it overshadowed the later victories, and it certainly dominated the visual record in Athens. In the last decades of the fifth century BC the Marathonomachoi became cliché figures of the good old times. The glory of the fighters at Marathon was magnified and amplified.
And one has to ask: why? Why Marathon? Because it had been a victory of the Athenians alone, supported only by the Plataeans? What about Salamis? The sea battle would not have been won without the Athenian fleet that had been built so rapidly in the late 480s BC.62 The victory at Salamis was praised in literary sources,63 and it was the topic of Aischylos’ famous tragedy The Persians (performed in 472 BC), but it never made it into imagery.64 The Athenians never developed an iconography for fights at sea, not even for victories. There are no images of the fleet or of oarsmen. If we relied on images alone we would not even know that Athens possessed ships! Although in the Persian wars the Athenians who had manned the triremes outnumbered the Athenians who had fought on the battlefield,65 the Athenians wished to continue to think of themselves as hoplites in the tradition of their forefathers and in accordance with mythical prototypes.
After the Persian wars, the Athenians produced and consumed a lot of images with fighting scenes in public and private spaces. The fighters, however, were figures of myth (and there were even new myths like the Amazons’ invasion of Attica) and their way of fighting remained the traditional one, with a preference for duels. On the battlefield, success depended on the individual commitment and performance of each combatant.66 Images of duel fights addressed and engaged the individual viewer because they showed persons acting individually, upon own initiative and in various ways. I suggested that the appreciation of individual arete could not be transferred from the battlefield (where individuals met the enemy face to face) to war ships (where the oarsmen as a collective entity were expected to row on command, most of them not even able to see the enemy).67 The traditional appreciation of fighting persisted because this kind of fighting was one worth discussing. It appealed to personal agency. G. Proietti recently added another argument for the focus on Marathon: She interpreted the Athenians’ concentration on this battle as one of the strategies to overcome the trauma that the sack of their city in 480 BC (repeated ten months later) had caused.68 The battle of Marathon had been a model of a battle: It had brought a victory (but so had Salamis), but – very important! – it had taken place outside the city gates, as a fight man against man.69
Myths make it possible to live with history comfortably. History does not simply happen. The consequences of decisions and events may be unpleasant, harmful or threatening. The wish to escape the responsibility for what happened or for what did not happen seems to be universal. History is not a given, innocent fact, but a construction of those who are interested in it. The past is shaped by memory. Decisions and events can be seen and presented in order to be useful for the present and the future, against better knowledge of actual facts.
Historical persons can become the projection for hopes and wishes. The Tyrannicides became icons of freedom, although freedom had been neither their intention nor their achievement. In this process, their statues, conspicuously present in the heart of the city, played a vital role. These statues showed them as men willing to act, about to attack. They did not tell a story; they appealed to the Athenians to take action against a tyrant, just as later anti-tyranny decrees did.
The Marathonomachoi – who had in fact saved freedom – became the prototypical Athenian fighters at a time when their way of fighting, as hoplites, was not the way the majority of Athenians had experienced the Persian wars. Praising them was not only a demonstration of bestowing honor and of appreciation of their action, but an appeal for future generations. Just like the Tyrannicides, they were role models: Stand up and resist the invader, even if you are outnumbered!
There is, however, a remarkable difference between the commemoration of the Tyrannicides and that of the Marathonomachoi: Neither the tumulus in the plain of Marathon nor the monument erected in the Kerameikos contained images and neither did the state memorials for the war dead during the entire Pentekontaetia. Only the names of the fallen were displayed. The myth of the Marathonomachoi, unlike the myth of the Tyrannicides, was told, not shown (with the exception of the painting in the Stoa Poikile).
The myths of the Tyrannicides and of the Marathonomachoi did not only shape history as it had happened, but they were meant to shape the future: The Tyrannicides served as a visual reminder to defend democracy, the Marathonomachoi as the paradeigm of warriors as they continued to be thought of: men who meet the enemy face to face on the battlefield outside the city, men who demonstrate their arete and their commitment. Plato claimed that the battles of Marathon and Plataiai had made the Athenians better70 – in this case his compatriots seem to have agreed.
Bibliography
Adornato, G. 2019. Kritios and Nesiotes as Revolutionary Artists? Ancient and Archaeological Perspective on the So-Called Severe Style Period. AJA 123: 557–587. →
Ajootian, A. 1998. A Day at the Races: The Tyrannicides in the Fifth-century Agora. In Stephanos. Studies in Honor of Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, eds. Hartswick, K.J. and Sturgeon, M., 1–3. Philadelphia. a, b
Akrigg, B. 2019. Population and Economy in Classical Athens. Cambridge. →
Anderson, G. 2007. Why the Athenians Forgot Cleisthenes: Literacy and the Politics of Remembrance in Ancient Athens. In Politics of Orality, ed. Cooper, C.R., 103–127. Leiden. a, b
Arrington, N.T. 2015. Ashes, Images and Memories. The Presence of the War Dead in Fifth-century Athens. Oxford. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Azoulay, V. 2014. Les tyrannicides d’Athènes. Vie et mort de deux statues. Paris. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, aa, ab, ac, ad, ae, af, ag
BAPD = Beazley Archive Pottery Database: http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk.
Barringer, J.M. 2009. A New Approach to the Hephaisteion. Heroic Models in the Athenian Agora. In Structure, Image, Ornament: Architectural Sculpture in the Greek World, eds. Schultz, P. and von den Hoff, R., 105–120. Oxford. →
Bélyácz, K. 2021. Eine Erinnerungsgeschichte zur Schlacht von Salamis. Vienna. →
Berti, M. 2004. Fra tirannide e democrazia. Ipparco figlio di Carmo e il destino dei Peisistratidi ad Atene. Alessandria. a, b
Boehringer, D. 1996. Zur Heroisierung historischer Persönlichkeiten bei den Griechen. In Retrospektive. Konzepte von Vergangenheit in der griechisch-römischen Antike, ed. Flashar, M., 37–61. Munich. a, b
Bommelaer, J.-F. 20152. Guide de Delphes. Le site. Athens. a, b
Bonelli, M. 2007. Timée le Sophiost. Lexique platonicien. Leiden. →
Bowie, E. 2010. Marathon in Fifth-Century Epigram. In Marathon – The Battle and the Ancient Deme, eds. Buraselis, K. and Meidani, K., 203–219. Athens. →
Brunnsåker, S. 1971. The Tyrant-Slayers of Kritios and Nesiotes: A Critical Study of the Sources and Restorations. Stockholm. a, b, c, d, e
Bumke, H. 2004. Statuarische Gruppen in der frühen griechischen Kunst. Berlin. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Calabi Limentani, I. 1976. Armodio e Aristogitone gli ussici dal tiranno. Acme 29: 9–27. →
Carpenter, T.H. 1997. Harmodios and Apollo in Fifth-Century Athens: What’s in a Pose? In Athenian Potters and Painters. The Conference Proceedings, eds. Oakley, J.H., Coulson, W.D.E. and Palagia, O., 171–179. Oxford. →
Castriota, D. 1998. Democracy and Art in Late Sixth- and Fifth-Century B.C. Athens. In Democracy 2500? Questions and Challenges, eds. Morris, I. and Raaflaub, K.A., 197–216. Dubuque. a, b, c, d
Davison, C.C. 2009. Pheidias. The Sculptures and Ancient Sources I-III. London. →
Di Cesare, R. 2014. Il gruppo dei Tirannicidi e le statue onorarie e votive nella piazza. In Topografia di Atene I,3.2, ed. Greco, E., 1075–1080. Athens. a, b, c, d, e
Di Cesare, R. 2015. La città di Cecrope. Ricerche sulla politica edilizia cimoniana ad Atene. Athens. →
Dietrich, N. 2013. Unvollständige Bilder im spätarchaischen und frühklassischen Athen. AK 56: 37–55. a, b, c, d, e
DNO = Der Neue Overbeck I-V, 2014. eds. Kansteiner, S., Hallof, K., Lehmann, L., Seidensticker, B. and Stemmer, K. Berlin.
Dubbini, R. 2013. Tirannicidi. Ricostruzione di Giulio Quirin Giglioli. In Ripensare Emanuel Löwy, ed. Picozzi, M.G., 238–245. Rome. →
Ekroth, G. 2002. The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults (Kernos Suppl. 12). Liège. a, b, c, d
Ferrario, B.S. 2014. Historical Agency and the ‘Great Man’ in Classical Greece. Cambridge. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n
Fehr, B. 1984. Die Tyrannentöter oder: Kann man der Demokratie ein Denkmal setzen? Frankfurt. a, b, c
Flashar, M. 1996. Die Sieger von Marathon – Zwischen Mythisierung und Vorbildlichkeit. In Retrospektive. Konzepte von Vergangenheit in der griechisch-römischen Antike, ed. Flashar, M., 63–85. Munich. →
Fornara, C. 1970. The Cult of Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Philologus 114: 155–180. a, b, c
Gafforini, C. 1990. I tirannicidi e i caduti in guerra. In Dulce e decorum est pro patria mori. La morte in combattimento nell’antichità, ed. Sordi, M., 37–45. Milan. a, b
Hanson, V.D. 2013. The Hoplite Narrative. In Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece, eds. Kagan, D. and Viggiano, G.F., 256–275. Princeton. →
Hölkeskamp, K.-J. 2001. Marathon – Vom Monument zum Mythos. In Gab es das griechische Wunder?, eds. Papenfuß, D. and Strocka, V.M., 329–349. Mainz. →
Hölscher, F. 2010. Die Tyrannenmörder – Ein Denkmal der Demokratie. In Die griechische Welt. Erinnerungsorte der Antike, eds. Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. and Hölkeskamp, K.-J., 244–258. Munich. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j
Hölscher, F. 2016. Review of Azoulay 2014. Gnomon 88: 277–279. a, b, c, d, e
Hölscher, T. 1998. Images and Political Identity: The Case of Athens. In Democracy, Empire and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens, eds. Boedeker, D. and Raaflaub, K.A., 153–183. Cambridge, MA. a, b
Hölscher, T. 2018. Visual Power in Ancient Greece and Rome. Oakland. a, b
Jung, M. 2006. Marathon und Plataiai. Zwei Perserschlachten als “lieux de mémoire” im antiken Griechenland. Göttingen. a, b, c, d, e
Keesling, C.M. 2010. The Callimachus Monument on the Athenian Acropolis (CEG 256) and Athenian Commemoration of the Persian Wars. In Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram, eds. Baumbach, M., Petrovic, A. and Petrovic, I., 100–130. Cambridge. a, b
Keesling, C.M. 2012. The Marathon Casualty List from Eua-Loukou and the Plinthedon Style in Attic Inscriptions. ZPE 180: 139–148. a, b
Keesling, C.M. 2017. Early Greek Portraiture. Monuments and Histories. Cambridge. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j
Korres, M. 2017. Το Τρόπαιον του Μαραθώνος. Αρχιτεκτονική Τεκμηρίωση. In Giornata di studi nel ricordo di Luigi Beschi, ed. Greco, E., 149–202. Athens. →
Krikona, E. 2019. Theseus and the Tyrannicides in the Persian Wars: Hero-Cult as a Linking Means between Military Might and Constitution in the Early-Fifth-Century BCE Athens. In Pietat, prodigi i mitificació a la tradició literària occidental, ed. Pomer, J.J. and Redondo, J., 101–133. Amsterdam. →
Krumeich, R. 1997. Bildnisse griechischer Herrscher und Staatsmänner im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Munich. a, b, c, d, e
Loraux, N. 2000. Born of the Earth. Myth and Politics in Athens. Ithaca. →
Matthaiou, A.P. 1988. Νέος Λίθος τοῦ Μνημείου μὲ τὰ Ἐπιγράμματα γιὰ τοὺς Περσικοὺς Πολέμους. Horos 6: 118–122. a, b, c
Matthaiou, A.P. 2003. Ἀθηναίοισι Τεταγμένοισι ἐν Τεμένεϊ Ἡρακλέος (Hdt. 6.108.1). In Herodotus and His World. Essays from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest, eds. Derow, P. and Parker, R., 190–202. Oxford. a, b, c, d, e
Meyer, E.A. 2008. Thucydides on Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Tyranny and History. CQ 58: 13–34. →
Meyer, E.A. 2016. Posts, Kyrbeis, Metopes. The Origins of the Athenian “Documentary” stele. Hesperia 85: 323–383. a, b, c, d
Meyer, M. 2005. Bilder und Vorbilder. Zu Sinn und Zweck von Siegesmonumenten Athens in klassischer Zeit. JÖAI 74: 279–314. →
Meyer, M. 2017. Athena, Göttin von Athen. Kult und Mythos auf der Akropolis bis in klassische Zeit. Vienna. →
Meyer, M. 2020. The Acropolis Burning! Reactions to Collective Trauma in the Years after 480/79 BCE. In Emotional Trauma in Greece and Rome. Representations and Reactions, eds. Karanika, A. and Panoussi, V., 95–110. Abingdon. →
Morrison, J.S. and Coates, J.F. 1996. Greek and Roman Oared Warships. Oxford. →
Neer, R. 2002. Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-painting. The Craft of Democracy, ca. 530–460 B.C.E. Cambridge. a, b, c, d, e
Neer, R. 2010. The Emergence of the Classical Style in Greek Sculpture. Chicago. a, b, c, d, e
Ober, J. 1993. The Athenian Revolution of 508/7 B.C.E. In Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece. Cult, Performances, Politics, eds. Dougherty, C. and Kurke, L., 215–232. Cambridge. →
Ober, J. 2003. Tyrant Killing as Therapeutic Stasis: A Political Debate in Images and Texts. In Popular Tyranny, ed. Morgan, K.A., 215–250. Austin. a, b, c, d, e, f
Ober, J. 2007. “I Besieged That Man” Democracy’s Revolutionary Start. In Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, eds. Raaflaub, K.A., Ober, J. and Wallace, R.W., 83–104. Berkeley. →
Oenbrink, W. 2004. Die Tyrannenmörder. Aristokratische Identifikationsfiguren oder Leitbilder der athenischen Demokratie? – Rezeption eines politischen Denkmals in der attischen Vasenmalerei. In Bildergeschichte. Festschrift Klaus Stähler, eds. Gebauer, J., Grabow, E., Jünger, F. and Metzler, D., 373–400. Möhnesee. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i
Page, D.L. 1962. Poetae melici Graeci. Oxford. a, b
Page, D.L. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge. a, b
Petrovic, A. 2007. Kommentar zu den Simonideischen Versinschriften. Leiden. a, b, c, d
Petrovic, A. 2013. The Battle of Marathon in Pre-Herodotean Sources: On Marathon Verse-Inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; SEG LVI 430). In Marathon – 2,500 Years. Proceedings of the Marathon Conference 2010, eds. Carey, C. and Edwards, M., 45–61. London. a, b, c, d
Proietti, G. 2015a. Storie su Maratona. Gli epigrammi ateniesi, la Stoa Poikile ed Erodoto. Incidenza dell’antico 13: 53–80. a, b, c
Proietti, G. 2015b. War and Memory: The Battle of Psyttaleia Before Herodotus’ Histories. BICS 58.2: 43–54. a, b
Raaflaub, K.A. 2004. The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece. Chicago. a, b, c, d, e
Raubitschek, A.E. 1940. Two Monuments Erected after the Victory of Marathon. AJA 44: 53–59. →
Rausch, M. 1999. Isonomia in Athen. Frankfurt. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Schmidt, S. 2009. Images of Statues on Attic Vases: The Case of the Tyrannicides. In The World of Greek Vases, eds Nørskov, V., Hannestad, L., Isler-Kerényi, C. and Lewis, S., 219–237. Rome. a, b, c, d, e, f
Schweizer, B. 2006. Harmodius und Aristogeiton. Die sog. Tyrannenmörder im 5. Jh. v.Chr. In Tekmeria. Beiträge für Werner Gauer, eds. Kreutz, N. and Schweizer, B., 291–313. Münster. a, b, c, d, e
Shapiro, H.A. 1994. Religion and Politics in Democratic Athens. In The Archaeology of Athens and Attica Under the Democracy, eds. Coulson, W.D.E., Palagia, O., Shear, T.L. Jr., Shapiro, H.A. and Frost, F.J., 123–129. Oxford. a, b
Shapiro, H.A. 2012. Attic Heroes and the Construction of the Athenian Past in the Fifth Century. In Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras, eds. Marincola, J., Llewellyn-Jones, L. and Maciver, C., 160–182. Edinburgh. a, b
Shear, J.L. 2007. The Oath of Demophantos and the Politics of Athenian Identity. In Horkos. The Oath in Greek Society, eds. Sommerstein, A.H. and Fletcher, J., 148–160. Bristol. →
Shear, J.L. 2012a. Religion and the Polis. The Cult of the Tyrannicides at Athens. Kernos 25: 27–55. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Shear, J.L. 2012b. The Tyrannicides, Their Cult and the Panathenaia: A Note. JHS 132: 107–119. a, b
Steinhauer, G. 2010. Οι στήλες των Μαραθωνομάχων. In Marathon – The Battle and the Ancient Deme, K. Buraselis K. and Meidani K., 99–108. Athens.
Stewart, A. 2018. Notes on the Origins and Early Development of the ‘Agora of the Kerameikos’. In honorem Bert Smith. In Visual Histories of the Classical World. Essays in Honour of R.R.R. Smith, eds. Draycott, C.M., Raja, R., Welch, K. and Wootton,W.T., 299–308. Turnhout. a, b, c, d, e
Strauss, B.S. 1996. The Athenian Trireme, School of Democracy. In Demokratia: A Conversation on Democracies, Ancient and Modern, eds. Ober J. and Hedrick, Ch. W., 313–325. Princeton. a, b, c
Suter, P. 1975. Das Harmodiosmotiv. Basel. →
Taylor, M.W. 1991². The Tyrant Slayers. Salem. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i
Teegarden, D.A. 2014. Death to Tyrants! Ancient Greek Democracy and the Struggle Against Tyranny. Princeton. a, b, c, d
Tentori Montalto, M. 2017. Essere primi per il valore. Gli epigrammi funerari greci su pietra per i caduti in guerra (VII–V sec. a.C.). Pisa. a, b, c, d, e
Thomas, R. 1989. Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens. Cambridge. a, b, c, d
Valavanis, P. 2010. Σκέψεις για τις ταφικές πρακτικές προς τους νεκρούς της μάχης του Μαραθώνος. In Marathon - The Battle and the Ancient Deme, eds. Buraselis, K. and Meidani, K. 73–98. Athens. →
Valavanis, P. 2019. What Stood on Top of the Marathon Trophy? In From Hippias to Kallias. Greek Art in Athens and Beyond 527–449 BC, eds. Palagia, O. and Sioumpara, E.P. 144–156. Athens. →
Van Wees, H. 2004. Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities. London. →
Van Wees, H. 2018. Citizens and Soldiers in Archaic Athens. In Defining Citizenship in Archaic Greece, eds. Duplouy, A. and Brock, R. 103–143. Oxford. →
Von den Hoff, R. 2009. Herakles, Theseus and the Athenian Treasury at Delphi. In Structure, Image, Ornament: Architectural Sculpture in the Greek World, eds. Schultz, P. and von den Hoff, R., 96–104. Oxford. →
Walter-Karydi, E. 2015. Die Athener und ihre Gräber (1000–300 v.Chr.). Berlin. a, b
Whitley, J. 1994. The Monuments That Stood Before Marathon: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Archaic Attica. AJA 98: 213–230. →
Notes
1
Harmodius and Aristogeiton as tyrant-slayers: Page (1962) 474–475 nos. 893, 895–896 (see n. 23); Schweizer (2006) 304 n. 2; Azoulay (2014) 13. Ar. Ach. 181 and Nub. 986: Marathonomachai. The form -machoi is widely used by modern authors, e.g. Thomas (1989) 246; Jung (2006) passim; Petrovic (2013) 53, 56, 60–61.
2
For the events of 514 and 510 BC, see Hdt. 5.55–57, 5.62–65, 6.123; Thuc. 1.20.2, 6.53–59; Ath. Pol. 18–19; Thomas (1989) 238–282; Neer (2002) 170–173; Schweizer (2006) 291–294; Meyer (2008) 13–34; Shear (2012a) 42–52; Azoulay (2014).
3
Hdt. 5.66, 5.69–78, 6.123; Thuc. 6.59; Ath. Pol. 20–22; Ober (1993) 215–232; Rausch (1999) 373–376; Ober (2007) 83–104.
4
Bronze statues: Val. Max. Mem. 2.10 ext. 1; Arr. Anab. 3.16.7, 7.19.2; DNO I 386–388. Antenor: Paus. 1.8.5; DNO I 382. Looted: DNO I 382, 386–388; Azoulay (2014) 51–54, 158–162.
5
Between 510 and 480 BC: Azoulay (2014) 13, 40–50, 236–239 with n. 17. Plin. NH 34.17 (“in the same year when also in Rome the kings were expelled”); DNO I 385. This synchronization raises suspicion (despite the facts that Hippias was expelled in 511/510, the kings in 510/509 BC. Fornara [1970] 157). Public appreciation of Harmodius and Aristogeiton at a time when Isagoras, backed by Cleomenes of Sparta and Cleisthenes competed for leadership, is highly unlikely. Many scholars date Antenor’s group towards the end of the sixth century BC, see Azoulay (2014) 43–44 n. 18 (bibliography) and Brunnsåker (1971) 97–98; Rausch (1999) 40–62; DNO I 296; Meyer (2017) 428 n. 3372; Stewart (2018) 301. For a date after Marathon or the introduction of ostracism: Raubitschek (1940) 58 n. 2; Gafforini (1990) 39–40; Shapiro (1994) 124 (contra: Krumeich [1997] 57–58); Berti (2004) 49–50, 165; Shapiro (2012) 161–162; Azoulay (2014) 40, 43–48 with n. 19. Skeptical: Hölscher (2016) 277.
6
As their replacements stood in the Agora, they probably did so, too. Ajootian (1998) 3–9 figs. 1.2–5; Shear (2012a) 33–36; Azoulay (2014) 41, 236–237; Keesling (2017) 24 n. 18 (was Antenor’s group supposed to “help ‘rebrand’ the Agora as democratic”?); Stewart (2018) 299–308 (the Agora actually developed around Antenor’s group). The Agora in the fifth century BC: Hölscher (2018) 42–47 map 10.
7
Castriota (1998) 206–208, 212; Bumke (2004) 144–145; Oenbrink (2004) 376 with n. 14 (bibliography); Neer (2010) 78 n. 38; Azoulay (2014) 40; DNO I 296–297.
8
Arist. Rh. 1368a (DNO I 562); Paus. 1.8.5 (DNO I 382, 558); Timaios Sophistes s.v. orchestra (Bonelli [2007] 161 lemma 318); FGrH 239, 70–71 (DNO I 560); cf. DNO I 559. Two fragments of the base with an epigram by Simonides: IG I³ 502; Brunnsåker (1971) 84–98 pl. 22; Bumke (2004) 133–134; Petrovic (2007) 113–131; Hölscher (2010) 247 with n. 3; Azoulay (2014) 58–59 fig. 2; DNO I 561; Ferrario (2014) 21–22; Di Cesare (2014) 1078 fig. 662; Keesling (2017) 25–26 with n. 25.
9
Brunnsåker (1971) passim, pl. 1–24; Fehr (1984) figs. 1–11, 17–24; Taylor (1991) 15–21; Neer (2002) 168–181 figs. 84–88; Bumke (2004) 131–145 pl. 27; Oenbrink (2004) 376–382 figs. 3–10; Schweizer (2006) 291–313; Schmidt (2009) 219–237 figs. 4–6, 9–10, 16–17; Hölscher (2010) 244–258, 629–630 (bibliography) figs. 60, 62–63; Neer (2010) 78–85 figs. 38–39; Azoulay (2014) 53–70, 75–77; 136–141, 234, 245–257 figs. 1–4, 13a-b; 21–22, 31–33; Di Cesare (2014) 1076–1080; Keesling (2017) 23–28 fig. 7; Stewart (2018) 301–305 fig. 24.3.
10
Fehr (1984) 11–54; Ajootian (1998) 1–3; Krumeich (1997) 58–59; Hölscher (1998) 155–163; Oenbrink (2004) 377; Shapiro (2012) 161–162; Dietrich (2013) 38–40; Di Cesare (2014) 1078–1079; DNO I 296; Hölscher (2016) 278–279; Hölscher (2018) 132.
11
Azoulay (2014) 19–20, 24, 40–43, 120–153, 233–244. He adds that the group was meant to outrage and provoke the Peisistratids (48–54) and points to a cultic function. For a critique see Hölscher (2016) 278.
12
Keesling (2017) 19–41, 56, 125–126; cf. already Shear (2012a) 35. See, however, Krumeich (1997) 58–59 (reasons for the non-existence of further honorific statues in the fifth century BC). For the cult of the Tyrannicides, see n. 26.
13
Azoulay (2014) 35.
14
For attempts to define commemorative statues, see Azoulay (2014) 42 with n. 17.
15
Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum 515 (c. 475 BC): Neer (2002) 173–181 figs. 84–85; Ober (2003) 219–221 fig. 8.3; Oenbrink (2004) 378–379; Schmidt (2009) 222–226 figs. 4 and 6; Hölscher (2010) 252–254 fig. 63; Dietrich (2013) 38, 43 pl. 8.2; Azoulay (2014) 245–247 fig. 31; BAPD 202924.
16
Bumke (2004) 138–141. Harmodius is represented with a sword, but he and Aristogeiton cannot possibly have carried swords in the procession (Ath. Pol. 18.4: ἐγχειρίδια).
17
Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia 50,321: Neer (2002) 173–180 fig. 86; Oenbrink (2004) 380, 397 fig. 4; Schmidt (2009) 223–224 fig. 5; Azoulay (2014) 246–247 fig. 32; BAPD 15306.
18
Dietrich (2013) 38–41, 45–46, 52; Azoulay (2014) 67–68.
19
For a correct reconstruction see Bumke (2004) 135–140 pl. 27; Dietrich (2013) 39 and the casts in the Museo dei Gessi in Rome (fig. 1, with the original ‘Harmodius’ motif’: right arm bent over the head). Hölscher (2010) 629 n. 1; Dubbini (2013) 238–245 fig. 11.
20
Thuc. 6.54.1–3, 6.57.3; Fehr (1984) 17–33; Loraux (2000) 65–82 (with focus on Thucydides’ interest in the love story and without consideration of the visual evidence); Hölscher (2010) 244, 247; Neer (2010) 78–81; Azoulay (2014) 30–32, 60–66, 119 (as descendants of Harmodius are known, he must have been married and have passed the stage of eromenos when he was killed in 514 BC).
21
On their style most recently: Bumke (2004) 143–144; Neer (2010) 78–85; Stewart (2018) 304–305; Adornato (2019) 557–587.
22
Carpenter (1997, 171–179) thinks that the ‘Harmodios motif’ (Suter 1975) derives from the standard pose of Apollo in the gigantomachy, attested since ca. 500 BCE. See Barringer (2009, 105–120) for images of Theseus and von den Hoff (2009, 101) for those of Herakles as modeled on the Tyrannicide. And mind the warning by Ober (2003, 236) against “finding a tyrannicide lurking behind every raised right arm” and the remarks by Azoulay (2014) 16, 251–257.
23
Page (1962) 474–475 nos. 893 and 896 (two more: nos. 894 and 895). Thomas (1989) 257–261; Taylor (1991) 22–35; Neer (2002) 18–19, 170–171; Petrovic (2007) 119–120; Hölscher (2010) 248–250; Azoulay (2014) 70–74; Ferrario (2014) 18–25. For a date before c. 480 BC: Brunnsåker (1971) 23–24; Rausch (1999) 50–54; Raaflaub (2004) 94–95; Shear (2012a) 33 with n. 25 (bibliography), 36–37; Stewart (2018) 301. Skeptical: Castriota (1998) 202–205, 209.
24
Hdt. 3.80.6, 3.142.3, 5.37.2.
25
Fornara (1970) 158–159, 163, 169–180 (he connects the skolia with aristocratic interests and sees isonomia as aristocratic in origin); Thomas (1989) 257–260 (changing meaning of isonomia); Boehringer (1996) 49; Rausch (1999) 53–54, 369–370; Raaflaub (2004) 95–96; Azoulay (2014) 59; Ferrario (2014) 20–22.
26
Cf. Cic. Mil. 80. Cult as heroes: Taylor (1991) 5–35; Shapiro (1994) 123–129; Rausch (1999) 59–62; Ekroth (2002) 82–88; Oenbrink (2004) 374–375; Schweizer (2006) 291–313; Hölscher (2010) 248; Azoulay (2014) 109–116, 234–238; Hölscher (2016) 277–278 (the statues were not necessarily the focus of the cult); Keesling (2017) 24–26 (see n. 12); Krikona (2019) 101–133. For the analogy to the cult of ktistai see Boehringer (1996) 49–51; Castriota (1998) 202–204; Shear (2012a) 39; Ferrario (2014) 22–23, 56. For a discussion of diverging interests: Fornara (1970) 155–180; Anderson (2007) 119–124.
27
Shear (2012a) 27–55 (the spondai to all the sacrifices were an innovation after 411); Shear (2012b) 107–119; Teegarden (2014) 44.
28
State memorial, near the entrance to the Academy: Paus. 1.29.15; Poll. 8.91. Calabi Limentani (1976) 15; Gafforini (1990) 37–45; Taylor (1991) 5–9; Krumeich (1997) 58; Rausch (1999) 55–59; Azoulay (2014) 69, 113–114, 146–147, 234–235 fig. 17; Ferrario (2014) 22, 32–33; Arrington (2015) 70–76 fig. 2.2.
29
Pl. Menex. 244a; Dem. 60.36. With reference to these sources Ekroth (2002) 82–85, 197, 204 questions that enagismata were the normal sacrifices for the war dead in Classical times (the enagismata for the Marathon war dead attested in IG II² 1006, 26 and 69, dated 122/121 BC, might be a later institution).
30
Ekroth (2002) 86–89, 121–128.
31
The enagismata might have had the expiatory function that Azoulay (2014) 32–36, 48–50, 234–238 wants to ascribe to the statue group in the Agora.
32
Ekroth (2002) 88; Di Cesare (2014) 1078; Arrington (2015) 72; Keesling (2017) 26.
33
Hdt. 6.109: Miltiades reminds Callimachus of the Tyrannicides’ fame as liberators of Athens in order to persuade him to vote for fighting the Persians in Marathon.
34
sitesis: IG I³ 131, 5–7 (to be dated in the 430s BC); Isae. 5.47; Din. 1.101. Taylor (1991) 1–3; Raaflaub (2004) 203; Azoulay (2014) 69, 133–135. Prohedria and ateleia: Isae. 5.47; Dem. 20.18, 127–130. Taylor (1991) 4–5; Shear (2012a) 38 n. 51; Azoulay (2014) 133–134; Teegarden (2014) 45–47. Law against slander of Harmodius and Aristogeiton or singing disparaging songs: Hyp. In Philipp. 3; Taylor (1991) 9; Azoulay (2014) 73–74, 86–87, 98. Slaves were not allowed to be given the names Harmodius or Aristogeiton: Gell. NA 9.2.10; Taylor (1991) 9; Berti (2004) 59–60.
35
Brunnsåker (1971) 104–105 pl. 23, 6a-c; Oenbrink (2004) 391–393 figs. 9–10; Schmidt (2009) 228–229 fig. 10; Hölscher (2010) 252–253 fig. 62; Shear (2012b) 109–111, 117 fig. 2; Azoulay (2014) 105–108 figs. 9a-b; Teegarden (2014) 45 fig. 1.2.
36
IG II² 6217. Oenbrink (2004) 386–391 figs. 7–8; Schmidt (2009) 227–235 fig. 9, with figs, 12–15; Hölscher (2010) 252; Azoulay (2014) 109–113, 142–145 figs. 10, 15–16. Choes were used at the festival of the Anthesteria; two more contemporary choes showed the Tyrannicides (one has two choes depicted between the men’s legs): Schmidt (2009) 232–235 figs. 16–17; Azoulay (2014) 109–113 figs. 11–12. Ober (2003) 239–244 interprets the relief as intentionally ‘amphibolic’. Contra: Schweizer (2006) 302–303.
37
Taylor (1991) p. XIII and XV (the Tyrannicides ‘symbolized daring’); Bumke (2004) 141–142, Oenbrink (2004) 394–395 and Dietrich (2013) 45–49 (their attack could address any tyrant). I cannot follow Neer (2010) 82 (“Everyone is a potential victim, every citizen a potential tyrant”). Cf. Soph. El. 973–985; Raaflaub (2004) 344 n. 11.
38
In the orchestra (Timaios Sophistes, see n. 8). Hölscher (1998) 160; Di Cesare (2014) 1078–1079; Azoulay (2014) 56–57, 90–91, 170–175, 200–201 figs. 1, 18–19, 23. Terminus ante quem for the introduction of ostracism is 487/486 BC (the first attested case; FGrH 324 F 6, Androtion). It is unlikely that it was introduced by Cleisthenes and not enacted until 20 years later (as Ath. Pol. 22.1–4 claims).
39
The decree moved by Demophantos in 410/409 BC after the demos’ successful resistance against the Four Hundred was apparently not the first one (Teegarden [2014] 42–43). All Athenians should swear to kill anyone who tried to overthrow the democracy and if a person died while killing a tyrant, he and his children should be treated as Harmodius and Aristogeiton and their descendants had been treated. Andoc. 1.95–98; Shear (2007) 148–160, esp. 158 (the oath was sworn in the Agora, in sight of the Tyrannicides); Hölscher (2010) 251; Shear (2012a) 36–42; Azoulay (2014) 34–35, 90–92, 236; Teegarden (2014) 15–17, 29–53; Keesling (2017) 24 n. 19. Cf. Ober (2003) 216–235 fig. 8.4.
40
Lycurg. Leoc. 51.
41
Cf. Castriota (1998) 200–209; Ober (2003) 215–250; Anderson (2007) 119–124.
42
The statue group continued to serve as a reminder of the values and the appreciation of the Athenians when, in the fourth century BC, honorific statues became a common phenomenon. The space near the Tyrannicides was kept clear of such monuments (Dem. 20.70), until in Hellenistic times statues for rulers were permitted to be erected in close vicinity. Azoulay (2014) 56–58, 127–132, 150–158, 162–179, 240–244 figs. 18–19; Hölscher (2016) 279; Keesling (2017) 27–28.
43
For the Marathon myth see Flashar (1996) 63–85; Hölkeskamp (2001) 329–349; Jung (2006) 13–224; Ferrario (2014) 25–41.
44
Pace Thuc. 2.34.5. Those who fell in the battle of Plataiai (in 479 BC) were still buried on the battlefield. Hdt. 9.85; Thuc. 3.58.4; Paus. 9.2.5. The Athenian state burial was not introduced until after the end of the Persian wars (see n. 56).
45
Paus. 1.32.3; Whitley (1994) 213–230; Rausch (1999) 222–224; Valavanis (2010) 73–98; Ferrario (2014) 26–28.
46
Astros 535 (fragments of further stelai: Astros 586, Astros 587): SEG 56:430; SEG 64:186 (2014 [2018]); Steinhauer (2010) 99–108; Keesling (2012) 139–148; Petrovic (2013) 53–61 (translation p. 60); Ferrario (2014) 32–33; Proietti (2015a) 66–72 (stelai erected after 490, epigram added 480–470 BC); Meyer (2016) 368–370 fig. 16; Keesling (2017) 24–26; Tentori Montalto (2017) 15, 18–20, 92–102 (480–470 BC).
47
Tentori Montalto (2017) 17, 95–96.
48
ML 19; Bommelaer (2015) 159–164 n. 225 fig. 48 (in Hellenistic times, three more statues were added). Inscription: “The Athenians to Apollo, akrothinia from the Medes, of the battle of Marathon.” Akrothinia (‘the best’: see K. Hallof in: DNO I 405) can be the actual spoils or votive offerings made from spoils: see Hdt. 8.121; DNO I 489 (a statue as akrothinion; reference by S. Prignitz).
49
Xen. Anab. 3.2.12; Plut. Mor. 672B-C; Ael. VH 2.25 (300 goats); Jung (2006) 54–58.
50
Jung (2006) 67–71, 122–125; cf. Ferrario (2014) 27.
51
IG I³ 503 + 504: ML 26; Matthaiou (1988) 118–122; Matthaiou (2003) 194–202; Petrovic (2007) 158–177; Keesling (2010) 116–118, 127–129; Petrovic (2013) 47–53; Ferrario (2014) 28–32, 40–41; Arrington (2015) 43–48; Proietti (2015a) 62–66; Proietti (2015b) 48–54; Meyer (2016) 367–372 fig. 15; Tentori Montalto (2017) 18–20, 102–108 (480–470 BC).
52
Page (1981) 222 Simonides XX; Matthaiou (2003) 196, 199; Ferrario (2014) 31; Arrington (2015) 46; Meyer (2016) 369; Tentori Montalto (2017) 106. The reconstruction of the monument is due to Manolis Korres: Matthaiou (1988) 120–122 figs. 1–2; Matthaiou (2003) 195–196; Petrovic (2007) 163; Walter-Karydi (2015) 171 fig. 93; Meyer (2016) 368.
53
As the findspot of block C reveals. Matthaiou (2003) 198; Arrington (2015) 45, 60–62 fig. 2.2 (CL 6). For the state burial, see Arrington (2015) passim.
54
Matthaiou (2003) 194–202 (with reference to a ‘polyandrion in the city’, ritually linked to the one at Marathon: IG II³ 1313, 15–18, dated 175/174 BC); Tentori Montalto (2017) 105–106. For a presumed cult of the Marathonomachoi, see Ferrario (2014) 27–28 and above n. 29.
55
Cf. Hdt. 7.139.5; Raaflaub (2004) 62–63 (on the rhetoric of ‘freedom’ that emerged in the mid-470s BC, see pp. 58–89); Bowie (2010) 204–212; Petrovic (2013) 51–53; Proietti (2015b) 48–54 (bibliography; critique in n. 28). There is no evidence for a date earlier than c. 480–470 BC for any epigram that praises the Marathon fighters (SEG 56:430, see n. 46; Page [1981] 217–218, 225–231 Simonides XVIII and XXI).
56
Cf. Keesling (2010) 129; Walter-Karydi (2015) 171. It was certainly not the first tomb monument along the road to the Academy. The memorials for the Marathonomachoi and for the Tyrannicides will have become focal points for later burials. Ferrario (2014) 31–32 (they were, however, not close to each other, as she suggests); Arrington (2015) 70–75 fig. 2.2 (CL 6 and vicinity of POL 6).
57
Paus. 1.15.3; Di Cesare (2015) 182–184, 188–192 figs. 120–121.
58
Paus. 10.10.1–2; Krumeich (1997) 93–102; Davison (2009) 303–309; Ferrario (2014) 34–36, 41; Bommelaer (2015) 135 no. 110 pl. 2 and 5. According to Pausanias this group was made by Phidias from the spoils of Marathon and comprised seven Eponymous heroes, Codros, Theseus and Neleus, and three Hellenistic kings (as additional Eponymous heroes). As I will argue elsewhere, these 13 statues originally stood on the (extended) akrothinia base next to the Athenian treasury (see n. 48) and were later transferred to the entrance in order to enlarge the Phidian group. For diverging views about these statue groups see most recently Keesling (2017) 103–104.
59
Korres (2017) 149–202 fig. 1 pls. 1–19 (a striding female figure on top); Valavanis (2019) 144–156 figs. 1, 2, 5 (Theseus fighting an amazon).
60
See n. 1; cf. Ar. Ach. 698–699; Vesp. 1075–1090.
61
Ober (2003) 217–222; Jung (2006) 128–146; Azoulay (2014) 82–86.
62
Hdt. 8.44.1: The Athenians provided 180 ships (total: 378 ships, Hdt. 8.48.1); Corinth sent 40 ships (Hdt. 8.1.1, 8.43.1), Aegina 30 (Hdt. 8.46.1).
63
Pl. Leg. 707b (the battle saved Greece).
64
For the history of the reception of this battle, see Bélyácz (2021). For the continued absence of the fleet in imagery, see Strauss (1996) 313–325.
65
The 180 Athenian triremes in the battle of Salamis (see n. 62) took c. 30.000 oarsmen; c. 18.000 of them were Athenian citizens and xenoi (metics), according to the so-called Themistocles decree. van Wees (2004) 208, 216, 243; van Wees (2018) 123; Akrigg (2019) 64–67. The battle of Plataiai was fought by 8000 Athenian hoplites (Hdt. 9.28.6) and the same number of light-armed (Hdt. 9.29.2; cf. Hdt. 9.60.3: Athenian archers). Marathonomachoi: 9.000 Athenians (Paus. 10.20.2, including old men and slaves; Nep. Milt. 4.3–5.5: 9.000 armati; Suda s.v. Hippias); or 10.000 Athenians (Just. Epit. 2.9).
66
Cf. Thuc. 5.70. For a controversy about actual hoplite fighting see Hanson (2013) 263–265.
67
Meyer (2005) 279–314. For the position of the three levels of oarsmen, see Morrison and Coates (1996) 279–283 figs. 53–54. For the oarsmen’s experience, see Strauss (1996) 316–318.
68
Proietti (2015a) 53–80. For this trauma, see also Meyer (2020) 95–110.
69
Cf. Ar. Vesp. 1075–1090 (performed 422 BC): praise of the Athenians standing ‘man next to man’ (line 1083), facing the barbarians. In Aristophanes’ times, the rowers could not be left unmentioned (lines 1091–1098, 1119).
70
Pl. Leg. 707c; cf. 706a–707b; Strauss (1996) 318–319.