William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: Cover
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: Introduction
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: I. Monuments of the Ionian Revolt
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: II. Monuments of Marathon
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: III. Panhellenic Monuments of the Persian Wars in General
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: IV. Panhellenic Monuments of Salamis
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: V. Panhellenic Monuments of Plataea
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: VI. Spartan Monuments of the Persian Wars in General
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: VII. Spartan monuments of Thermopylae
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: VIII. Spartan Monuments of Salamis and of Plataea
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: IX. Athenian Monuments of the Persian Wars in General
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: X. Athenian monuments of Artemisium
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: XI. Athenian Monuments of Salamis
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: XII. Athenian Monuments of Plataea
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: XIII. Corinthian Monuments
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: XIV. Monuments of Other Cities
William Custis West, III, Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars: Bibliography
The Greeks who defeated the Persian invaders in the early fifth century B. C. erected monuments to last beyond their lifetimes and to arouse in succeeding generations a feeling of respect and wonder for their achievement. None of the monuments commemorating these famous wars have survived in unimpaired form and few have survived at all. In view of the ravages of time and warfare this fact is hardly astonishing and gives striking confirmation of the wisdom of such poets as Pindar and Horace (Nemean 5; Odes 3.30).
The purpose of this study is to recover, as far as possible, knowledge of the public monuments of the Persian Wars set up by the Greeks of the fifth century. A survey of the evidence is proposed. It will take the form of a catalogue; the evidence has been collected from inscriptions, scattered literary references, and archaeological research. The classification of monuments as public means that they were put up by a league or city rather than by an individual. By their form, size, and appearance they expressed the corporate feelings of a group for the events they represented. Although discussed generally in several places they have never been completely collected or studied as a group. The catalogue of monuments arranged according to sanctuaries, cities, and battlefields of the Persian Wars is intended partially to fill this need.
There has been relatively little previous work on this subject. Only R. W. Macan has compiled a list of many of the major monuments in literary sources.  He has written a useful discussion of sources other than Herodotus for the Persian Wars, of which the survey of monuments is a part, but he is chiefly interested in the light which they shed on the narrative of Herodotus and not in the monuments themselves. Consequently he does not discuss each item individually and has not made much use of archaeological material. His list is arranged by types and sometimes his classification is not clear. Since Macan no comprehensive examination of the evidence of monuments has been undertaken, although some of the inscriptions of the Persian War era have been collected,  and A. Volkmann has made a separate study of the inscriptions cited in the work of Herodotus. 
The Greek word for monument is mnema. In the sixth and early fifth centuries it is commonly used in dedicatory inscriptions and always refers to a concrete object, such as an altar, a stele, or a column.  In the poetry of Homer it is closely associated with memory, as its root implies, and signifies a physical object, which may recall a person who is dead or absent. For example, Achilles gives Nestor a phiale as fifth prize for the chariot race, during the games held for the funeral of Patroclus. He calls the gift a Πατρόκλου τάφου μνῆμα, a “mememto of the burial of Patroclus,” and thereby is careful to indicate that the saucer is a memorial when linked, in the mind, with the funeral games (Iliad 23.619). Similarly, telemachus is presented by Helen with a silver krater as a future weding gift, μνῆμ’ Ἑλένης χειρῶν, a “memento from the hands of Helen” (Odyssey 15.126). Or, to consider still another example, the famous bow of Odysseus, given him by Iphitus, had lain unused in Ithaca for many years, the reminder of a dear friend (μνῆμα ξείνοιο φίλοιο ; 21.40). Odysseus had never taken it with him to war, probably because of the pleasant association it had for him of his former friendship with Iphitus.
Mnema designates the physical object in its capacity to awaken in present thought the associations of the past. It is closely connected with human beings and is intended to represent them. Similarly the person who presents an object in a religious sanctuary hopes thereby to recall himself to the divinity.
Mnema may recall an event as well as a person. The crown of olive is a mnema of the Olympian games (Pindar, Ol. 3.15), or, more precisely, victory in the games. It may also be used metaphorically, as, for instance, the sufferings of the Greeks at Troy are called by the chorus in Sophocles’ Ajax (1210) the λυγρᾶς μνήματα Τροίας. The phrase occurs in a lyrical passage, where metaphorical abstraction is to be expected. From these examples it is clear that the mnem a is a concrete object which ecalls something from the past, usually a person whom it frequently associates witha particular event.
Evidently the object becomes a monument not because of any particular characteristics it happens to have but because of an interpretation put upon it, by which it is connected with the past. The interpreter may be the person who presents a gift or a poet who calls attention to the power of an object to commemorate; and in the absence of a personal interpreter, the monument may bear an inscription which states its commemorative function. In the minds of later generations the structure is linked by the inscription with the fame of the event it commemorates.
The famous deeds of the Persian Wars evoked in the Greek cities, among many complex associations and feelings, the desire to preserve their memory for posterity and for the gods who had aided them  ; one of the direct means of accomplishing this purpose was the erection of commemorative monuments.
The individual sources by which we obtain information about these monuments may now be described in brief. First of all, although not any entire monuments are extant, a few are preserved in considerable fragments and may be identified by authentic fifth century inscriptions (nos. 8,12,13,18,25,43,60,64,68). Each of these raises its own particular problems, which are discussed under the appropriate item in the catalogue, In all cases, if the epigraphical and archaeological evidence points to the fifth century, we may be reasonably certain that we are dealing with an authentic source of primary importance. Problems of interpretation may still arise, however.
For instance, the grave in which the Athenians buried their dead on the plain of Marathon, a hugh mound called the Soros (no. 5), is still to be seen today. It is, then, an extant monument. We know from good literary evidence that the Athenians put up near it a stele containing a casualty list (Pausanias 1.32.3). The stele may also have had a funerary epigram. Archaeological evidence, such as vases and potsherds found in the excavation of the mound, agrees with the literary evidence regarding its dating (Thuc. 2.34.5). We may be sure, therefore, that the Soros is a genuine monument for the battle of Marathon.
All of the other extant monuments bear inscriptions.  They can only be understood fully, however, in relation to the literary tradition. A good example is the column fragment which bears an epigram extolling the heroism of the Athenian polemarch Callimachus at Marathon (no. 12). Callimachus himself had dedicated a statue of Nike to Athena before the battle of Marathon, during which he was subsequently killed. Apparently disagreement arose in Athens as to whether he or Miltiades was the chief hero, and Callimachus’ friends inscribed the epigram on the column which supported the dedication. Later tradition, however, favored Miltiades. Neither general comes off badly in the writing of Herodotus, although more attention is perhaps paid Miltiades. Both generals figure prominently in the painting of the battle in the Stoa Poikile (no. 14). Callimachus, however, was not given a portrait statue in the Agora, whereas Miltiades was (no. 46); or at least no statue of him is known.
The base containing a dedicatory epigram near the Athenian Treasury at Delphi (no. 8) obviously refers to a dedication made for the battle of Marathon. It has been disputed whether the stone slab is a step of the treasury terrace, and therefore refers to the entire treasury, or is merely a separate base which supported certain offerings. This question has to be settled on the basis of architectural evidence, which seems to indicate that the treasury was built in the sixth century and not after the battle of Marathon.
The so-called “Marathon” epigrams (no. 13) have perhaps raised more problems than any other extant monument. Since only a part of the base which the epigrams adorned has survived, we do not know the nature of the monument itself. The problem is complicated by the absence of the texts of the epigrams in the literary tradition, One can only examine closely the preserved texts and satisfy himself or herself that they do refer to the battle of Marathon  and then make a reasonable conjecture as to the type of monument they adorned.
The inscription on the base of the statue of Athena Promachos states that the statue was a dedication for the Persian wars (no. 18) but the inscription itself gives no indication of what stood on the base. References to this famous statue by Phidias are made by Demosthenes (19.272) and Pausanias (1.28,2).
The epitaph for the Corinthians at Salamis (no. 64) conflicts somewhat with the literary tradition. Since it is probably a genuine inscription of the early fifth century, it sheds great light on the literary tradition and the dangers inherent in placing too much trust in it.  As preserved on stone the epigram is of two lines, but the version quoted by Plutarch (De Herodoti malignitate 39) and Favorinus (Ps-Dio Chrysostom 37.18) contains four lines. Evidently they copied their epigram, not from the stone itself, but from a book of epigrams in which the second distich had been added. Nevertheless epigrams found only in literary sources are not necessarily to be considered suspect.
The inscription on the stylobate of the Athenian portico at Delphi (no. 43) refers to certain spoils of a naval victory displayed in the building. It is quite likely that these spoils were the cables of Xerxes’ bridge over the Hellespont, brought back to Greece by the victorious fleet of which Athens was the leader (Hdt. 9.121).
The other three extant monuments (nos. 25,60,68) provide in their inscriptions a more immediate interpretation. The inscription of the memorial of the Megarians who died in the Persian Wars is demonstrably late, although it claims to be the re-edition on stone of an authentic inscription of the fifth century. Pausanias (1.43.2) saw the memorial but does not mention the inscription. This may be interpreted as evidence that the letters had become faded by the second century A. D. and could not be distinguished, thereby requiring re-editing (no. 68).
The Persian helmet dedicated by the Athenians at Olympia (no. 60) and the serpent column of the gilded tripod dedicated by the Greeks at Delphi (no. 25) are quite clearly connected with the Persian wars by their inscriptions and we are thereby enabled to interpret them against a background of information drawn from other sources.
There are a number of inscriptions quoted as metrical epigrams  in the literary tradition and not preserved on stone. Apart from actual inscribed epigrams already mentioned, seventeen epigrams  are quoted as having stood on monuments of the Persian Wars (nos. 6, 16, 33, 39, 42, 50, 62, 63, 65, 66, 72, 76, 77, 78, 85, 87). In addition, there are six epigrams (Doubtful monuments, 3-6, 9, 11) which are almost certainly not authentic. Each of these epigrams must be criticized individually. As a general rule, the style and source must be taken into consideration. Genuine fifth century dedicatory epigrams are terse, simple, and unassuming; they do not boast of the prowess of the dedicator. They state the simple fact of the dedication: the dedicator, the object dedicated, the deity to which the dedication is made. Epitaphs, on the other hand, usually refer to thee dead by the use of a demonstrative pronoun and implore the sympathy of the onlooker. An epigram excessively ornate or elaborate in style is at once suspect.
Epigrams are quoted by Herodotus (no. 76); Thucydides (no. 25); Diodorus (from Ephorus) (nos. 25, 72); Lycurgus (nos. 6, 76); Plutarch, Themistocles (no. 50), Aristides (nos. 33, 85); De Herodoti malignitate (nos. 33, 50, 63-66); Scholiast on Aristides (no. 65); Strabo (no. 77); Stephanus of Byzantium (no. 78) and the Palatine Anthology (nos. 16, 39, 42, 65, 87). Spurious epigrams are quoted by Aristides (no. 6); Scholiast on Gregory of Nazianzus (no. 3); and the Palatine Anthology (nos. 4, 5, 9, 11).
It is significant, perhaps, that of twenty three separate attested epigrams two thirds are given only in sources later than the fourth century B. C. It was not until the late fourth and third centuries, however, that the physical monuments entered the literary tradition directly. They appeared in the writings of the antiquarians, which were used in turn by historians and orators. Interest in epigrams as inscriptions worth collecting and studying for their own sake led to the development of the epigram as a literary genre. Since most of the sources for the Persian War epigrams are themselves late, it is difficult to tell whether epigrams quoted by such sources are authentic. The book collections of epigrams included many which were purely literary creations and never inscribed on stone. They imitated authentic epigrams of the dedicatory and funerary type.
Regarding writers of the fifth century, we are on fairly firm ground. Herodotus quotes the epigrams which stood on stelae on the field of Thermopylae (7.228; no. 76) and are not preserved. He also quotes the epigram dedicating the bronze chariot for victory over the Boeotians and Chalkidians at the Euripus in 506 B. C. (5.77). He quotes the inscription from the monument restored by Pericles. Fragments of the sixth century inscription and of the copy, however, are preserved IG I2 394; Tod 1945-1948,1: 12, 43). They prove that Herodotus’ quotation is correct.
Similar confirmation exists for Thucydides’ citations. The inscription of an altar dedicated to Apollo by Pisistratus (IG I2 761) has been preserved and proves correct Thucydides’ quotation of it (6.54). We may therefore trust his quotation of the boastful epigram which Pausanias caused to be inscribed on the serpent column of the tripod dedication at Delphi after the battle of Plataea (1.132.2; no. 25). Herodotus and Thucydides are both trustworthy sources for epigrams but, unfortunately, they quote only three which are pertinent to the Persian Wars (nos. 25, 76).
Some epigrams are preserved in the orators of the fourth century. Lycurgus quotes two (nos. 6, 76). One of these, the Simonides epigram for the fallen at Thermopylae, is almost certainly authentic because it is also cited by Herodotus (no. 76a). Aeschines (3.184) gives the three epigrams which Cimon inscribed on Herms in the Agora and since these could be plainly seen by everyone transacting his daily business, it is unlikely that he has given an incorrect version. In the very same speech he invites the attention of his audience to the monuments in the Agora (3.186), as if to encourage investigation. The same reasoning might also apply to the other epigram quoted by Lycurgus (no. 6) if it stood in the Stoa Poikile, near the painting of the battle of Marathon.
Plutarch and the Palatine Anthology give the greatest number of epigrams, however, and these authorities must be examined in some detail. Plutarch quotes seven different epigrams. In the case of the epitaph for the Corinthians at Salamis (no. 64) he clearly did not get his text from the stone because he quotes a version of four lines, whereas the original inscription has been preserved and contains only two lines (IG I2 927). Yet Plutarch’s first two lines are the same as those on the stone. He therefore quotes an expanded version and not one that is entirely non-authentic. At best he may have seen the stone and not recorded the inscription, perhaps memorizing the first line or the opening phrase for purposes of reference. When writing he may have recalled the opening line and then quoted the full version from a book. After all, he quotes the epigram in the De Herodoti malignitate (39) and would need the full version to “refute” the historian. There seems to be no reason to reject Plutarch altogether as an authority for epigrams.
Moreover, the epigram quoted from one of the stelae near the temple of Artemis Proseoa at Artemisium (Themistocles 8 and De Herodoti malignitate 34) is quite possibly authentic, since it appears that Plutarch visited the area; he gives a topographical description of it in Themistocles.  No other author, not even the compiler of the Palatine Anthology, mentions this epigram. Plutarch may have been the first to take notice of it.
Similarly the altar establishing the worship of Zeus Eleutherios at Plataea seems to be attested by a passage in Thucydides (2.71.2). Yet Plutarch is the only authority to quote the epigram (no. 33). To Plutarch’s discredit, however, is the fact that his version of the epigram on the victory Herms in the Athenian Agora (Cimon 7.4-6) is in some phrases at variance with the version given by Aeschines. Once again, however, he has the opening lines.
The other epigrams quoted by Plutarch (nos. 65, 68, 85) must be judged on their own terms, according to style and probability. There is certainly no reason for rejecting Plutarch altogether as an authority for epigrams.
None of the epigrams preserved in the Palatine Anthology are quoted by other authorities which would make genuineness certain, although one (no. 65) can be paralleled with Plutarch. Some of the epigrams are doubtless not authentic inscriptions; yet preservation of an epigram only in the Palatine Anthology does not justify rejecting it outright. Each poem must be judged according to its style. Is it simple and not ornate? Did it adorn a monument likely to have been erected? All of the late authorities, Aristides, the Scholiast, Strabo, Stephanus of Byzantium, are to be judged by these standards.
Up to this point we have been considering inscriptions as the means whereby objects are interpreted as commemorative. Certain monuments are attested by inscriptions preserved on stone; others are cited by epigrams given only in books. If ever inscribed, these epigrams represent actual monuments once in existence. In either case, we must examine our evidence critically. The interpretation put upon a physical object is just as important as the object in signifying its use as a monument.
Many other monuments are attested by no inscriptions at all but only by mention in the literary authorities. A distinction must be made between the value of early and late authorities. The trophies, dedications, altars, temples, and graves, which were monuments for the wars, were evident for all to see, on the various battlefields and in the cities and religious sanctuaries. They entered the literature of the fifth and fourth centuries only as the author found occasion to mention a monument or quote an inscription. In the latter part of the fourth century, however, interest in monuments and inscriptions for their own sake led to collections of them, such as that of Craterus.
In the third century B. C. learned antiquarians, Diodorus, Heliodorus of Athens, and Polemon of Ilium, began collecting and writing about monuments in earnest. Among their writings, now lost, we find such titles as Peri mnematon, Peri tes akropoleos, Peri ton anathematon en tei akropolei and Peri ton en Delphois thesauron (Cf. H. Bischoff, s. v. Perieget, RE 19: 728-742). These may well have contained descriptions of monuments of the Persian Wars. Such information, however, written down two centuries and more after the events, would only be as trustworthy as the antiquarian who wrote about them. If any of these monuments found their way into writings preserved today, such as those of Pausanias and Plutarch, they can be accepted as genuine only if they do not contradict information from earlier sources. If we know the value of our separate sources and exercise judgment accordingly, we may in large measure recover knowledge of the monuments of the Persian Wars.
Naturally notice of a Persian War monument given in a fifth century author, such as Herodotus, is of immediate value and the monument likely to be authentic. On the other hand, a monument attested only by Plutarch, writing in the first century A. D., is open to question. We must ask of the latter both if it is likely to be authentic and also why it was not preserved in an earlier tradition. Yet the late authorities are not to be despised just because they are late.
Herodotus gives information about fourteen pertinent monuments  (nos. 16, 25-29, 34, 43, 51, 67, 73, 76, 80, 90). He wrote some thirty or fifty years after the events he describes and his narrative stops in the year 479. Monuments erected after this year would not necessarily fall within the scope of his history.Thus he does not mention the great statue group for Marathon dedicated at Delphi (no. 17) or the statue of Athena Promachos on the Athenian Acropolis. Moreover he does not give a systematic listing of the monuments for Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale, although he was impressed by monuments  and even perhaps thought of deeds in spatial terms.  It was simply not his purpose to do so.
He does mention major dedications and significant items for each battle and in some cases has been strikingly confirmed by archaeology. Herodotus cites the shrine for Pan (no. 16), the great Panhellenic dedications after Plataea (nos. 25-27); the dedication, for Salamis, of triremes at the Isthmus, Sunium, and Salamis (no. 28); the Panhellenic dedication at Delphi for Salamis (no. 29), the tombs at Plataea (no. 34), the Athenian portico at Delphi (no. 43), the epigrams upon stelae set up over the fallen at Thermopylae (no. 76), and other, less spectacular, items dedicated by individual cities (nos. 51, 73, 80, 90).
It is surprising, however, that he does not connect the altar of the Chians at Delphi (no. 67), which he saw, with the Persian wars, if indeed it is a Persan War monument. He might also have mentioned the covenant of Plataea. Yet Herodotus knew that in the record of the achievement the monuments alone of the Persian Wars could not even tell the full story of an event and that they could even deceive (9.85). He is, however, a trustworthy authority for the monuments he does mention.
The work of Thucydides has only an incidental connection with the Persian Wars.  He begins his narrative of the Pentekontaetia, the period of fifty years between the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War, where the history of Herodotus stops, but his purpose in writing of these years is to give an account of the growth of Athenian imperialism. Not once in these chapters (1.89-118) is a monument of the Persian Wars mentioned. In fact, in his entire work there is notice of only three monuments connected with the Persian Wars (nos. 5, 25, 48). One significant monument, the Soros at Marathon, is probably not interpreted correctly (no. 5).
Thucydides maintains an almost complete silence as to the other monuments of the Persian Wars. The famous gilded tripod with the serpent column is mentioned only because its original inscription illustrates the boasting of Pausanias (no. 25). He does not mention the tomb of Themistocles as an important monument in Athens (no. 48), although he does say that the remains of the great statesman were recovered from Magnesia in Asia Minor and secretly reburied.
The comedies of Aristophanes occasionally illuminate our knowledge of the Athenian monuments of the Persian Wars but the only direct reference is that made to the trophy set up on the plain of Marathon (Knights 1333-1334 and Wasps 708-711). There is an allusion to the Theseum (no. 19) and one to the sacrifice of goats to Artemis (no. 22; Knights 658-662). Aristophanes does not refer to the Theseum as a monument of the Persian Wars and his notice merely tells us that such a building existed in the fifth century; it confirms the more explicit testimony of Plutarch (Theseus 35.8) and Pausanias (1.17.6). Altogether the harvest of Persian war monuments from fifth century authors is disappointing but the failure to discover in their writings a complete listing need not surprise us.
None of the literary authorities of the fourth century could have had first hand knowledge of the Persian Wars. Yet interest in the great achievement of that period was prompted by the Athenian orators, who set it up as an example for the fourth century to emulate. Monuments would quite naturally lend themselves to such a purpose and therefore some trustworthy information is preserved. Unlike documents kept in archives, the access to which was limited, monuments could be seen by everyone.
Nevertheless, despite these conditions favorable to the relation of information about the Persian War, not many such monuments are mentioned by the fourth century orators.  Among the significant items Aeschines and an orator who wrote in the style of Demosthenes mention the painting of the battle of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile (no. 14); Demosthenes cites the statue of Athena Promachos on the Acropolis (no. 19). Lycurgus’ quotation of the epitaph for the Spartans at Thermopylae can be paralleled by Herodotus (no. 76a); his citation of a similar poem for the Athenians (no. 6) is not cited elsewhere. As this poem is clearly not an epitaph it may have stood near the painting of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile; this is, however, not certain. Other references to monuments of the Persian wars in the fourth century orators include Isocrates’ reference to a statue of Zeus Eleutherios in the Agora (no. 45); Demosthenes’ reference to the Persian spoils which had been kept on the Acropolis (no. 58); and Aeschines’ notice of shields of the Persians dedicated at Delphi and set upon the architraves of the temple of Apollo (no. 61). Finally, Isocrates cites an oath sworn by the Ionians not to rebuild their temples destroyed by the Persians (no. 2); and Lycurgus quotes the oath sworn by the Greeks before the battle of Plataea, in which a similar prohibition is made (no. 30). These oaths are not monuments themselves but they testify to the Greek resolve that the ruined sanctuaries would stand as memorials of Persian impiety. The oath of Plataea is, in fact, denounced as spurious by Theopompus, but there seems to be earlier evidence corroborating it (cf. Thuc. 2.71.2 and 3.68.4).
Fourth century historians did deal with the Persian wars in writing universal history but their concept of historiography was influenced by rhetorical training. Isocrates wrote that great deeds were to be embellished by fitting language (4.9). Ephorus, whose history Diodorus  probably excerpted, makes a few references to monuments (nos. 25, 30, 31, 38, 72, 76) and he is interested in using them to express the greatness of the events of the Persian Wars. He mentions the serpent column (no. 25) and the epitaph for the Spartans at Thermopylae (no. 76a), which had been cited earlier by Herodotus. He makes scattered references to several less spectacular monuments and items of commemorative significance, such as the dirge for the fallen at Thermopylae (no. 38) and an epigram upon a trophy set up by the inhabitants of Delphi in the precinct of Athena Proseoa (no. 72). He gives some important information as to the oath sworn before Plataea (no. 30) and mentions the provisions of the covenant of Plataea (no. 31).
Treatment of the Persian wars falls outside the scope of Xenophon’s works and, accordingly, it is no surprise that he has only one reference to an item of commemorative significance for the Persian Wars. He tells us of the vow made before Marathon to sacrifice to Artemis Agrotera as many kids as there were Persians left dead upon the field and then remarks that the sacrifice was continued even in the time he was writing (no. 22; Anabasis 3.2.11). The annual sacrifice in its periodic observation recalled the battle of Marathon. It is an important item of commemorative significance, like the Simonidean dirge sung at the shrine of the Thermopylae heroes in Sparta.
In the third and second centuries B. C. monuments may have entered the literary tradition in a more or less systematic manner in the writings of antiquarians and periegetes. Atthidographers and compilers of local histories may have written of monuments of the particular location they described. Unfortunately the work of these writers is practically all lost, but they may have preserved items which later writers, such as Plutarch and Pausanias could quote. Late authorities  may in general be trusted if they make reference to a likely monument and it can be shown that they may have had access to a good source of information.
Of the late authorities the most valuable, as far as the Persian War monuments are concerned, are Plutarch and Pausanias. They may now be considered at some length. Plutarch makes reference to twenty six monuments (nos. 4, 19, 22, 24, 31, 33, 41, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 85),  of which six are also to be found in early authorities (nos. 4, 19, 33, 59, 61, 64). The monuments attested only in Plutarch and late authors fall into certain groups: trophies (nos. 41, 50, 52, 53, 57); tombs of Athenian statesmen (nos. 48 and 49); a group associated with Plataea (nos. 24, 31, 41, 57, 65); and a group associated with Corinth (nos. 63-66).
The group associated with Plataea comes entirely from the Aristides. The temple of Athena Areia (no. 24) was also seen and described by Pausanias (9.4.1-2). The terms of the Covenant of Plataea are given only by Plutarch, but the covenant itself is also mentioned by Diodorus (11.29.1) and there are apparent references to it in earlier authors (cf. no. 31). He says that the Athenians and Spartans set up separate trophies for the battle of Plataea. This notice apparently contradicts the information of Pausanias (9.2.6: cf. nos. 32,41,57) who speaks of a single trophy. It was usual for only a single trophy to be set up by the victor but Plutarch may have known that the Spartans and Athenians fought and were victorious in different parts of the field (Thuc. 7.45.1). The grave of Euchidas, who was given public buril in the precinct of Artemis Eukleia in Plataea, may well have been seen by Plutarch, as he quotes the inscription which stood over the tomb (cf. no. 85).
The epigrams on monuments in Corinth are quoted in the De Herodoti malignitate (nos. 63-66). Plutarch may have visited Corinth and been impressed by them. The impression made may have led him to attack Herodotus, whose history he thought hostile to the city. In Herodotus the Corinthians come off badly; the story is related in which the Athenians accuse them of running away from Salamis (8.94). They were thereby branded as deserters of the Greek cause and were not likely to take these accusations lying down. The monuments set up in Corinth call attention to the feats of valor for which they believed no credit had been given them in the pages of Herodotus. The epigrams which Plutarch. quotes are in the style of the fifth century and, since the monuments they adorned are probable ones for that time, we need not be too skeptical about them.
Pausanias approaches most nearly the systematic collection of Persian War monuments. He cites nearly forty five (nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 82, 83, 84, 86), of which eighteen are referred to in early authors (nos. 4, 5, 8, 14, 16, 18, 19, 25, 26, 30, 34, 43, 45, 48, 51, 58, 61, 68). Yet even he was selective in what he chose to describe (cf. 1.39.3, 3.11.1) and since his purpose was to give a description of Greece and not a description of Persian war monuments, we need not be surprised to find omissions. Moreover, Pausanias probably got some of his information from books, although it is impossible to say just how much this was. Nevertheless, he was a conscientious observer; if he states that he saw a particular monument, we may be sure that he did.
In the interpretation of what he saw, however, he may be mistaken and, once again, we must inquire as to the likelihood and propriety of monuments not attested in early authorities.  Of these by far the most significant is the great statue group of Athena, Apollo, the Ten Heroes and Miltiades dedicated by the Athenians at Delphi for Marathon (no. 17). Dedicated in the 460’s this statue group is an elaborate monument to the earlier battle, but theAthenians were very proud of theit victory at Marathon. The great bronze statue of Athena on the Acropolis, made from the spoils of Marathon, was certainly commissioned and dedicated long after the Persian destruction of 480, probably as late as the 450’s.
Pausanias is the only author to tell us of statues of Athenian statesmen in the Agora (nos. 46, 47). He does not say when they were put up, nor whether they were even of the fifth century. In fact, Demosthenes specifically says that statues of Themistocles and Miltiades were not set up (23.196). Pausanias, however, remarks of the Roman statues commemorating famous statesmen, which were actually old Greek statues with their names changed (1.18.3-4). This seems to indicate that the statues were likenesses of types rather than realistic portraits.
The famous Ostia bust of Themistocles is believed a faithful copy of a fifth century sculpted head; it may have been copied from a portrait statue, whether in the Agora or elsewhere. Demosthenes (20.70) states that Conon was the first statesman, after Hermodius and Aristogeiton, to have had the honor of a statue in the Agora. The practice of putting up statues of famous men may date from the early fourth century rather than the fifth. On the other hand, such evidence as the Ostia bust of Themistocles, the Cresilas bust of Pericles in the British Museum, and the statues  of Harmodius and Aristogeiton point to a possible fifth century date in this matter.
The other monuments mentioned by Pausanias and not attested in early authorities include trophies (nos. 32, 52); graves of famous men (nos. 7, 36, 40, 86); miscellaneous dedications (nos. 23, 29, 33, 69, 70, 74, 75, 82-84); temples and shrines (nos. 15, 24, 37, 55); a secular statue group (no. 71), buildings (nos. 35, 59) and one painting dedicated at Olympia (no. 54). Each of these items must be judged on its own merits. 
Finally, there are some monuments preserved in no ancient authority,  either by an inscription or literary reference. Eleven items (nos. 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 44, 81) are presumed by modern scholars to have been of commemorative nature with regard to the Persian Wars. They include coins (nos. 1. 9, 10, 11), pedimental sculptures (no. 81), temples (nos. 3, 20, 21) and one non-religious structure (no. 44). Problems involved are discussed under ech item. Probability is of paramount importance in determining the acceptance of any of them.
a. Graves of the Combatants.
Burial of the dead was done on the battlefield. Eurymedon (ca. 467) was an exception to this rule  . After the battle the Athenians brought the bodies home and buried them in the Kerameikos, perhaps because they felt a special pride in this great victory. Shortly thereafter, in 465/4, public burial in Athens of those slain in foreign wars was to become a permanent Athenian exception to the usual Greek practice.  At any rate for the famous battles of the wars of 490 and 480/79 – Marathon, Thermopylae, Artemisium, Salamis, Plataea – every city buried its dead on the battlefield.
In order to understand the graves as monuments, however, we must examine more closely the particular types of stelae  erected, the honors paid the dead, and the nature of hero cults practiced in succeeding years. It will be convenient to discuss each battle individually.
After the battle of Marathon the Athenians buried their dead on the battlefield and heaped over them a great mound (no. 5). Thucydides, discussing burial of war dead in the Kerameikos, claims that it was a special honor for the Marathon warriors to be buried on the battlefield (2.34.5). This is probably not true. It was merely the usual practice at that time, but the huge mound on the desolate plain was an imposing sight and was doubtless quite renowned in the Athens of Thucydides.
Pausanias (1.32.3) describes the graves as having a stele with a casualty list of the names of the dead according to tribes. Besides the Athenian casualty list there was a second stele with the names of the Plataeans and the slaves who had fallen in the battle. The practice of honoring the war dead with a casualty list is quite standard for the Kerameikos burials, once the custom was established in 465/4.  Whether or not the Athenians would put up a casualty list as early as 490, however, is open to question.
Yet besides the explicit testimony of Pausanias, there seems to be some evidence on this point even in Herodotus. He gives the number of the slain as one hundred ninety two (6.117), a number surely derived from a casualty list or at any rate frequently reported as the historian questioned people about the battle. Moreover, Herodotus states that the Athenian force was arranged in battle line according to tribes and the Plataeans stationed at the end of the line (6.111). Arrangement of troops according to tribes need come as no surprise because of the practices of recruiting and administration, and the casualty lists of the Kerameikos burials are so arranged. If a casualty list did exist for the Soros, however, it would provide a convenient explanation for these items in the account of Herodotus.
The fallen at Marathon were worshipped as heroes, with sacrifices made at the Soros, in Hellenistic and Roman times (IG II/III2 1006; Paus. 1.32.4; Aristides 2,229 Dindorf) but there does not seem to be any direct evidence of this practice in the fifth century. Herodotus mentions a prayer, however, for the Athenians and Plataeans together at the quadrennial festivals in Athens (6.111) and indicates that it derives from the fact that the two cities fought together at Marathon. This notice bespeaks a special reverence for the heroes of Marathon in a state festival at Athens in the fifth century, such as the Panathenaea.
The battlefield of Thermopylae provides clear and unmistakable evidence of honors paid the dead in the form of commemorative monuments. Herodotus says that stelae were set up over the graves by the Amphiktyons (7.228), each with an epigram, one for the entire force, one for the Spartans alone, and one for the seer Megistias (no. 76). Strabo (9.4.2) says that there were five stelae on the field of Thermopylae and quotes an epigram for the Opuntian Locrians (no. 7700. An epigram for the fifth stele, for the Thespians, is cited by Stephanus of Byzantium. Were these two latter stelae, however, set up immediately after the battle, or at least when the others were erected? Both Strabo and Stephanus of Byzantium are rather late authorities for the epigrams quoted, and it is doubtful whether either of them copied the epigram from stone. Still, even if the epigrams did come from books, that is no reason to suppose that they could not also have existed on stone, and Strabo at any rate would have investigated his sources carefully and with a normal amount of scholarly caution. The texts of the epigrams themselves are in accordance with the style of the fifth century. 
The problem is incapable of final solution but, once again, Herodotus may shed some light on it. The Greek force at Thermopylae is enumerated in 7.202. In addition to the contingent from Sparta, the leader of the force, the cities of the Peloponnesus are listed separately, immediately after Sparta. Herodotus singles out these cities by saying that they were the group from the Peloponnesus and the natural inference is that they were members of the Peloponnesian League.  The Boeotian group is listed next, consisting of contingents from Thespiae and Thebes, although the Thebans stayed against their will after the oracle foretelling defeat for the Greeks (7.220, 222). Finally Herodotus says that the Opuntian Locrians and the Phocians came to their aid in their entire force (7.203).
Before the battle Sparta was deserted by her allies because of the overwhelming odds, except for Thespiae and Thebes, the latter of whom remained against their will (7.222). Yet the valor of the Thespians at the battle is amply attested in Herodotus (7.226. 227). After the dead were buried, probably even after the battle of Plataea, the Amphiktyons erected two stelae over the graves, one for the entire force and one for the Spartans alone (7.228). Later another stele was added, for the seer Megistias, by Simonides himself, a personal friend (7.228). It is altogether likely that the Thespians, too, proud of the service they had rendered to a renowned cause and chafing that they were not mentioned specifically in the epigrams of the Amphiktyons, added a separate stele of their own.
As for the Opuntian Locrians their contribution to the force at Thermopylae had perhaps been overshadowed by the fact that they were among the cities which eventually took the side of the Persians out of fear (7.132) and were forced to fight against the Greeks at Salamis and Plataea (8.66; 9.31). They did fight at Artemisium, however (8.1), and at Thermopylae were among those who urged the Peloponnesian allies not to desert the Spartans (7.207). Once again, it would not be strange for the Locrians to set up a stele on the field of Thermopylae, claiming recognition for the part they played in the defense of Greece. Although it cannot be stated with certainty, one would suppose that the stelae for the Thespians and for the Locrians were added later, perhaps not more than a few years and surely after Plataea, like the stele for the seer Megistias.
Furthermore, there was a tradition that honors were paid the heroes of Thermopylae in a yearly festival at Sparta established more than half a century after the battle (Paus. 3.14.1). After the burial of Pausanias, the victor of Plataea, near the shrine of Athena of the Brazen House two bronze statues were set up near his grave at the command of Apollo (Thuc. 1.134.4). These statues were not connected with the Persian wars, but the remains of Leonidas were brought from Thermopylae and reburied at Sparta some forty years after the burial of Pausanias. The graves of the two war heroes stood near each other and near these tombs a stele with the names of the fallen was set up (no. 36; cf. no. 38). Pausanias further specifies that oratorical contests were held before these tombs (3.14.1). These contests were quite likely funeral orations. They were not mentioned by any fifth century source but Diodorus (Ephorus) records a lament on the heroes of Thermopylae (11.11.6; no. 38). It may have been sung over their graves, with the grave of Leonidas nearby, to which it makes reference. Whether actually composed by Simonides or not, the poem is entirely suitable to fifth century style and, therefore, with the reburial of Leonidas at Sparta, a cenotaph to the heroes of Thermopylae may also have been erected.
There is an epigram in the Palatine Anthology (7.301; no. 39) which purports to be an epitaph for Leonidas but makes striking reference to the warriors he commanded. It would have great force if set up over his actual grave (in Sparta) with the cenotaph to the Thermopylae heroes nearby. It is unlikely that this development of the Thermopylae legend was strictly contemporary with the Persian Wars, but it is tempting to suggest a parallel between the funerary honors at Athens and Sparta in the funeral oration and the erection of casualty lists. The Spartan list would be for a cenotaph and not for an actual grave, and their custom would have lagged behind the Athenian practice for a number of years.
Thermopylae and Artemisium were the land and naval counterparts of the same action, although Artemisium is dealt with by Herodotus as if it were a separate battle. No information is preserved, however, as to how the dead were buried. Doubtless the bodies were recovered and given simple burials on land without special stelae and epigrams.
As for Salamis, the Corinthians buried their dead on the island itself and honored them with an epitaph (no. 64). Moreover, they also set up a special cenotaph at the Isthmus (no. 65) with an epigram (Plut., De Herodoti malignitate 39; Anth. Pal. 7.250; Schol. on Aristides 3,136 Dindorf).  No tradition is preserved that other cities erected cenotaphs (cf. no. 68).
The battle of Plataea occupied an important place in funeral honors paid to warriors. All combatants were buried on the battlefield (no. 34) and several cities quite likely set up stones with epigrams honoring their participants in the famous battle.  Plataea soon became legendary as establishing freedom for the Greeks. Many tombs were later put up on the battlefield by cities which had not even participated in the battle but desired to have a share in its glory (Hdt. 9.85; Plut., De Herodotis malignitate 42). Herodotus (ibid.) remarks that tombs and barrows could be seen everywhere.
In addition to the honoring of actual combatants of the Persian Wars Plutarch reports a story (Aristides 20.5) in which a certain Euchidas was given public burial in the precinct of Artemis Eukleia at Plataea. He ran to Delphi after the battle and brought back the sacred fire with which the city Plataea was purified (no. 85).
For the dead in all of the battles of the Persian Wars the city Megara set up a special cenotaph with an honorary epigram (IG 7.53; no. 68). The actual inscription dates from the fourth or fifth century A. D., but the preserved version is a copy of the original, whose letters could no longer be seen. Pausanias saw the cenotaph in the second century A. D. (1.43.2), but he does not mention the inscription. The erection of a cenotaph when the bodies of the dead cold not be recovered had been practiced among the Greeks even in the Homeric era (cf. Odyssey 1.29 and 4.584).
In the honors paid the dead, therefore, we may observe an important means whereby the legacy of the Persian Wars was kept alive for succeeding generations.
Trophies were customarily set up by the Greeks on the battlefield at the spot where the battle was turned. As such they were considered dedications to Zeus, who was given the epithet Tropaios (“the turner”, i. e., of the tide of battle) for his victory over the Titans.  They consisted of arms and armor taken from the foe and heaped on some support in a prominent place.  Thus, in the time of the Persian wars, it was not intended that the trophy stand as a permanent monument. Because the victory was considered a gift of the gods, it was not desired that memory of warfare between states (as represented by the trophy on the battlefield) last forever (cf. Cic., De Inv. 2.69).
In the late fifth century, however, some trophies were apparently put up in fairly durable material. A monument of bronze was erected by the Ephesians in 405 to commemorate a victory over Athens (Plut., Aristides 207d). The Theban trophy at Leuctra was of bronze (Xen., Hellenica 6.4.15). This trophy was apparently rebuilt in the Hellenistic period. The evidence for this replacement is the remains, on the battlefield at Leuctra, of a circular base which, because of the type of clamps used, resembles Hellenistic workmanship.  Long after the Persian Wars some of the famous trophies may also have been rebuilt. Trophies must have been set up on every battlefield.
After the battle of Marathon the trophy of victory was set up (no. 4). It probably took the customary form of spoils taken from the slain foe, although there is some indication that it was of a more lasting nature, as Aristophanes still refers to it (Knights 1333-1334; Wasps 708-711). Characters are exhorted to act in a manner worthy of the Marathon trophy. Pausanias (1.32.5) saw it in the second century A. D. He says that it was of white marble. Doubtless it had later been rebuilt in this material.
The outcome of the battle of Artemisium was inconclusive and, therefore, a trophy of victory need not have been set up. It was not uncommon, however, in an inconclusive battle for both sides to claim victory. At any rate, Plutarch (Themistocles 8; no. 50) mentions as a trophy a circle of marble stelae set up in the precinct of Artemis Proseoa by the Athenians. This trophy must have been set up long after the threat of Xerxes had passed. The epigram which adorned one of the stelae seems to be of the fifth century. Possibly it was inscribed on a stele and set up there relatively early and later more stelae were added.
For the battle of Salamis the trophy was erected on the island of Salamis (Paus. 1.36.1). An inscription of the Roman era (IG II/III2 1028) mentions that Athenian ephebes were accustomed to row out to Salamis and make sacrifices to Zeus Tropaios. Plutarch also mentions a trophy erected for the hoplite skirmish on the island of Psyttaleia (Aristides 9.4; no. 53). The trophy on Psyttaleia is quite likely, in view of the usual practice in hoplite battles. The trophy which Pausanias saw had probably been given permanent form long after the battle.
The trophy for Plataea was located, according to Pausanias (9.4.2), some fifteen stades from the city (no. 32); Plutarch, however, says that the Spartans and the Athenians set up separate trophies (nos. 41, 57). Occasionally in some Greek battles two trophies were set up (cf. Thuc. 7.45). The trophy which Pausanias saw was doubtless intended to represent the victory of the entire force. It, too, had probably been given permanent form by the time Pausanias saw it.
Finally, the Delphians set up a trophy beside the temple of Athena Pronaea, in Delphi, in behalf of their deliverance from the army of Xerxes (no. 72). As it bore an epigram (Diodorus 11.14.4) this trophy was doubtless of marble and was probably rebuilt in that form at a late date.
The word commonly translated “dedication” is anathema, which literally means, “that which is set up.” It refers to an offering to a deity which is considered sacred because it has been so offered and set up in a sanctuary. The dedication is an expression of thanks for a favor of the god but is equally a reflection of the piety of the dedicator.
The thing dedicated  is usually an object or group of objects, which are taken from the everyday world and “set up” in the sanctuary of the deity. Dedications for the Persian wars include the spoils of battle (nos. 8, 28, 43, 58, 60, 61, 88); statues, both divine (nos. 12, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 29, 45, 63, 74, 82, 83, 89) and human or animal (nos. 17, 69, 75, 84, 90) and special votive offerings (nos. 13, 25, 54, 56, 80, 81).
Altars, special sanctuaries and precincts, and temples were not considered dedications. Although they were religious monuments offered a god, they did not have to be set up in a shrine in order to be consecrated. Certain areas were considered by nature holy or sacred to a certain deity. The building of an altar or temple in that place was held to be the establishment of something for which the place was always fit.  The temple did not have to be dedicated in order to make it sacred; it was already sacred by the fact that it was built in a sacred area. For this reason the act of building a temple or altar was called hidrusis or hidruma, usually translated “establishment” or “foundation”. It is important to realize that both types of offering are different aspects of a religious action. For the Persian wars such hidruseis include altars (nos. 16, 19, 37, 51, 55); and temples (nos. 3, 15, 20, 24, 51).
The individual types of dedications may now be considered. Dedications of foes’ arms or the booty taken in battle is attested for all the major Hellenic victories.  In its simplest form the dedication consists merely of weapons (no. 28) or armor (nos. 8, 60, 61). As a monument of victory such a dedication signifies the mastery of the victor, and captured arms and armor were often displayed in a prominent position (no. 8) or even in a building specially constructed for display (no. 43). The inscription of an epigram upon a base or upon the object itself would serve to interpret the dedication as a memorial of victory (nos. 8, 60).
Of the spoils of Marathon, dedications were made to Athena (no. 18) and to Apollo at Delphi (no. 8). The dedication to Athena was a bronze statue of the goddess set up on the Athenian Acropolis. It was made from the proceeds realized from the sale of booty. The dedication to Apollo was probably arms or armor displayed on an inscribed base near the Athenian Treasury at Delphi. Its inscription calls the thank offering akrothinia (“first fruits”). It is apparent that there are two possibilities in the dedication of spoils. Some may be dedicated immediately as a token of all the booty collected (akrothinia, aparchai, dekate); or a portion may be set aside and used later for the purchase of a work of art or offering of some magnificence.
From the spoils of Salamis captured Phoenician triremes or parts of them were dedicated (no. 28; cf. nos. 29, 54). The spoils of Plataea  were quite rich, however, and all of the participating cities probably acquired a share. The Athenian spoils were dedicated to Athena (no. 58) and were reckoned by Pericles among the wealth of the city (Thuc. 2.13.4). Consisting of such exotic items as the tent of Xerxes, the gold corselet of masistios, the sword of Mardonius, and the silver-footed throne of Xerxes, they definitely quickened the curiosity of the Athenians; the tent of Xerxes apparently inspired the building of the Odeum of Pericles in imitation of it (no. 59; Plut., Pericles 13.5-6; Paus. 1.20.4). Of the items acquired by other cities only the manger of Mardonius, dedicated in the temple of Athena Alea in Tegea, is attested (no. 88; Hdt. 9.70.3).
One of the most elaborate examples of dedication of spoils is to be seen in the Athenian portico at Delphi (no. 43). If the hopla in the dedicatory inscription refer to the cables of Xerxes’ bridge over the Hellespont, the display of these spoils in a splendid portico provides an imposing monument to the final victory over Xerxes’ force and, in a larger sense, symbolizes victory over the Persians in general. Herodotus dwells at length on the fate of these cables (9.115, 118-119, 121) quite likely because he had seen them so magnificently displayed at Delphi.
Furthermore, the accumulation of booty after Marathon prompted, in the years after the defeat of the army of Xerxes, the dedication of two elaborate statue dedications from spoils: the group of Athena, Apollo, Miltiades, and Athenian Eponymous Heroes at Delphi (no. 17) and the statue of Athena Promachus dedicated on the Acropois (no. 18). The former represents an elaboration of the simple practice of dedicating a statue of the god in his sanctuary; it linked the Athenian victory at Marathon with Apollo at Delphi.
Of the other two statue dedications for Marathon, however, only one is of a traditional kind: the statue of Pan dedicated in the sanctuary for that deity established in Athens after Marathon. No statue of Pan has survived but the cave of Pan has possibly been identified on the North slope of the Acropolis (no. 16). It doubtless had a cult statue. An epigram which purports to be a dedication for such a statue of Pan is preserved in the Palatine Anthology (no. 232, of the Planudean collection).
A statue of Nike, or Iris, was dedicated by the polemarch Callimachus to Athena before Marathon. Originally it had nothing to do with the battle but after it a dedicatory epigram was inscribed upon the column which supported the statue (no. 12). The epigram may well have been inscribed on the column in order to call the attention of Athena to the polemarch’s heroic and valiant part in the battle. The character of the monument was thereby changed; it now became a striking and unusual memorial of the valor of Callimachus, who died in the battle.
For Salamis the Panhellenic dedication sent to Delphi was a statue of the god Apollo holding in his hand the beak of ship (no. 29; Hdt, 8.121; Paus. 10.14.5). It resembles a notable painting of Salamis holding in her hand a ship’s beak (no. 54; Paus. 5.11.5-6), which was dedicated at Olympia. Attic vases show that this was a common type.
The statue of Artemis the Savior dedicated by Megara in the sanctuary of that deity in Megara (no. 82) and a similar statue dedicated in the village of Pagae in the Megarid (no. 83), both for the victory at Plataea, are statue dedications in the traditional sense. In this case the dedicator thanks the god for a special favor by presenting him or her a splendid statue. Several statue dedications for the Persian Wars are of this type (nos. 26, 27, 45, 74).
Finally, there are examples of human and animal statue dedications made by cities (nos. 69, 75, 84, 90). The statues of the sea diver Skyllis and his daughter Hydna dedicated at Delphi by the Amphiktyons are symbolic of the aid the diver rendered the Greek cause at Artemisium (hdt. 8.8). In representing this fact to Apollo it suggests that human skill is supported by divine aid and is in fact powerless without it.
The bronze statues of oxen dedicated at Delphi by Carystus in Euboea (no. 75) and Plataea (no. 84) are probably representative of an agricultural state but they may also represent the strength of the dedicator. The golden statue of Alexander I of Macedon, on the other hand, is not a typical Greek dedication (no. 90), as the king thereby suggests his own prowess to the god.
Besides the elaboration seen in some of the traditional forms of dedication (nos. 17, 18, 43), certain special votive offerings reflect the Greek attitude toward Persian War monuments. There are perhaps in this period the beginnings of a type of commemoration in which the idea of victory is more important than traditional religious attitudes. After victory at Eion, for instance, Cimon was allowed to inscribe epigrams of his victories on Herms in the Athenian Agora. Although the Herm itself is a dedication to Hermes, the epigrams (Aeschines 3.183-185; Plut., Cimon 7.4-6) quite clearly give emphasis to the victories.
The so-called Marathon epigrams (no. 13) may have been inscribed on a Herm.  It would not be strange for Athenians to put emphasis on a victory for its own sake in the 470’s. Marathon was certainly commemorated in splendid fashion in the 460’s (nos. 17, 18); it need not occasion surprise to find epigrams inscribed on Herms in either of the two decades after Plataea.
Perhaps the most magnificent of all the Persian War memorials was the famous gilded tripod supported by three entwined serpents, which was dedicated at Delphi by Sparta in behalf of the Panhellenic force (no. 25). Inscribed with the names of the cities which took part in the defense of Greece, it recognized the aid of Apollo in proclaiming the unity and might of the cities which had opposed Persia.
The Aegenetans were required to make a special dedication after Salamis (no. 80; Hdt. 8.122). Their dedication of a bronze mast with three gold stars is difficult to explain but seems to be symbolic of nautical skill.
d. Other religious monuments.
The establishment of altars, sanctuaries and temples may now be considered. It has been remarked that the building of an altar or temple or the creation of a sanctuary does not involve dedication in the usual sense, since its site is already considered sacred. Consequently the establishment of an altar in such an area implies worship of the deity concerned and not merely the recognition of favor. In this sense there is evidence from a fifth century source only for an altar of the winds, set up by the Delphians after the defeat of the army of Xerxes (Hdt. 7.178). Herodotus further remarks specifically of sacrifices to the winds which had continued even in his time.
The provisions of the Covenant of Plataea (no. 32; Plut., Aristides 21.1-2) established the worship of Zeus Eleutherios in connection with ganes, the Eleutheria, held every four years. The authenticity of this covenant is disputed but there does seem to be some evidence for it in other sources besides Plutarch, perhaps even a reference in Thucydides (2.71.2 and 3.58.4). At any rate there is a tradition of an altar to Zeus Eleutherios (no. 33; Plut., Aristides 19.7 and De Herodoti malignitate 42)- and an epigram is reported by Plutarch. Stylistically the epigram accords with fifth century usage and in one particular its choice of words is noteworthy. It uses the correct term for the establishment of an altar, hidrusanto, whereas in the imperial writers the distinction between hidrusis and anathema may be blurred.  The evidence seems to point to the genuineness of the epigram and hence the authenticity of the altar.
Two other altars are attested (nos. 67, 70). The great altar which stood in front of the temple of Apollo at Delphi was presented by the Chians (Syll.3 19). It was seen by Herodotus (2.135) who does not remark of its connection with the Persian Wars. It bears an inscription of the early fifth century, according to the letter forms. It is likely that the altar was presented because of an important event. Two occasions are possible: the brief period of freedom which Chios enjoyed during the Ionian revolt, or after the battle of Mycale, when the Ionian states were freed from the yoke of Xerxes. The latter occasion is perhaps more likely.
An altar to Helios Eleutherios in Troezen was seen by Pausanias (2.31.5; no. 70). The periegete conjectures that it was probably established after the defeat of Xerxes. He doubtless bases his conjecture on the epithet Eleutherios. The worship of Helios in Troezen is attested by a private dedication of the late fifth century (IG 4.760; Syll.3 1159).
Sanctuaries were established for deities in connection with Marathon and Salamis (nos. 16, 19, 55). The worship of Pan was undertaken at Athens because of his aid at Marathon (no. 16; Hdt. 6.105).
A sacred precinct was established at Athens for Theseus after the same battle (no. 19; Paus. 1.17.2-6; Plut., Theseus 35.8). The name Theseum is known from fifth century sources (Thuc. 6.61; Aristophanes, Knights 1311). Theseus is depicted as rising from the ground in the famous painting of the battle of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile (no. 14; Paus. 1.15.3). His worship at Athens in the first half of the fifth century is well attested. Finally, a sanctuary of the hero Cychreus was established on the island of Salamis after the naval victory (no. 55; Paus. 1.36.1).
The most imposing monument of this type is the temple built for the worship of a deity. There are several temples whose building was prompted by the Persian Wars. The successors of two of the structures, the Older Parthenon and the Old Propylon, eventually became two of the most famous monuments in the Greek world (nos. 20, 21). The Propylaea is not a temple in the strict sense but, as the entrance to the Athenian Acropolis, it may be construed as a building of religious significance.
The victory of Marathon gave impetus to a great new Athenian building program. The partially completed buildings, consisting only of foundations, were destroyed by the Persians in 480 B. C. and left in ruins because of the Oath of Plataea (no. 30). Rebuilding of the Acropolis was later undertaken by Pericles (cf. Congress Decree: Meritt, Wade-Gery, and McGregor 1939-1953: D12; Plut., Pericles 17). The Parthenon and the Propylaea were erected under the Periclean building program but the original buildings on these sites were probably conceived as memorials of the battle of Marathon (cf. Dinsmoor 1950: 149-150).
The Old Temple of Poseidon at Sunium was possibly built in 490 B. C. (no. 3; Dinsmoor 1942: 192-193) to propitiate Poseidon at the sailing of the Athenian contingent to aid in the Ionian revolt. It was later destroyed, in 490 or 480, and its successor rebuilt under Pericles. Curiously, this would be the only religious monument to have survived from the period of the Ionian revolt. The Ionian cities had apparently sworn an oath similar to the one sworn before Plataea (Isocrates 4.155-156; no. 2).
Evidence for other temples includes: a temple of Eukleia in Athens (no. 15; Paus. 1.14.5) and a temple of Athena Areia in Plataea (no. 24; Plut., Aristides 20.3; Paus. 9.4.1-2), both for Marathon; a shrine for the heroes Maron and Alpheius in Sparta (no. 37; Paus. 3.12.6; cf. Hdt. 7.227) for Thermopylae; and a shrine to Boreas in Attica (Hdt, 7.189.3) for Artemisium (no. 51).
e. Non-religious monuments.
The monuments not set up for religious purposes include such things as buildings (nos. 35, 44, 59); statues of famous men (nos. 456, 47); a statue group of women and children (no. 71) and some tombs of famous men (nos. 36, 40, 48, 49). Also to be included in his class is the painting of the battle of Marathon which hung in the Stoa Poikile in the Athenian Agora (no. 14), although it depicted the gods aiding the Greeks.
Vitruvius describes a certain Persian Stoa in Sparta (no. 35) which he says was built from spoils. It stood in the Agora and, according to Pausanias (3.11.3), was the most noteworthy building there. He says that the building had been ornamented beyond its original scope. There were marble statues of Persians, used as pillars, and also statues of Mardonius and Artemisia. It would seem that the elaborate decoration was done at a later time, perhaps later than the fifth century; there is, however, no reason to doubt a stoa of modest proportions in the late fifth century. Interest in the achievement of the Persian wars had been quickened by the recovery of the remains of Leonidas for reburial in Sparta (no. 36) and the ceremony established at the tombs of Pausanias and Leonidas (no. 38).
Similarly in Athens there was a period around the middle of the fifth century in which the Persian Wars were commemorated. The painting of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile has already been mentioned (no. 14). There may also have been statues of famous statesmen, Miltiades and Themistocles in the Agora (no. 46) and Xanthippus on the Acropolis (no. 47). These statues are not at all certain because of the previously mentioned testimony of Demosthenes on this point (20.70). Nevertheless there were statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton in the Agora in the fifth century. Portrait statues of the statesmen are possible, especially in the late fifth century, and therefore they have been included in the catalogue.
Tombs of famous generals would be of incidental interest in themselves but for the fact that statues of these generals were also sometimes made. The tombs of Pausanias and Leonidas (no. 36) and Eurybiades, commander of the Spartan fleet (no. 40), are mentioned by Pausanias among the noteworthy sights at Sparta, He also mentions the tombs of Themistocles and Aristides at Athens (nos. 48, 49). Obviously, these tombs, like the grave of Miltiades, supposedly on the field of Marathon (no. 7; Paus. 1.32.4), serve to recall the individual battles and the wars in general. They represent the trend toward the establishment of the Persian Wars as a concept worth preserving.
Pausanias also mentions stone statues of women and children in the Agora at Troezen (no. 71; Paus. 2.31.5). The statue group commemorates quite clearly the assistance that city had rendered Athens in the crucial months before Salamis. Whether or not they were set up in the fifth century, however, is not certain.
In frequent use for day-to-day transactions, coins are a sure and ready means of memorializing an event unconsciously in the minds of a group of people. Yet, with regard to the Persian wars, apparently little use was made of coins as a means of commemoration.
Certain coins may have commemorated individual battles. The stater issued by Naxos bearing a wreathed cantharis has been interpreted as a victory issue for the Ionian revolt (no. 1) and the Athenian tetradrachm, didrachm, and decadrachm (nos. 9-11) as victory issues after Marathon. The tetradrachm was changed in design after that battle and the didrachm and decadrachm not even issued until the decade of the 480’s and then only for a few years. It is likely that such coins were struck as victory issues but it is certain that in the fifth century B. C. coins were not nearly so popular as a means of commemoration as they were in later times.
The reason for this is open to speculation only, but perhaps it was because the small coins could not be sufficiently linked in the popular mind with a religious action. They frequently bore representations of a deity and thereby were reminders of that deity’s sovereignty over the issuing city, but they were certainly not imposing in the way which a statue, an altar, or temple was. Religious motives were doubtless inherent in the desire to commemorate the Persian Wars, for it was thought that on these famous battlefields gods and men had fought together (Hdt. 8.109).
g. Documents supporting monuments.
These items include oaths (nos. 2, 30) and an agreement (no. 31) made for the commemoration of certain aspects of the Persian Wars. During or after the Ionian revolt the cities of Ionia swore an oath not to rebuild the sanctuaries destroyed by the Persians. They agreed to leave the ruins as a memorial to Persian unrighteousness (no. 2; Isocrates 4.155-156). The resolve seems in fact to have been carried out, as both Cicero (De re publca 3.9) and Pausanias (10.35.2-3) mention the oath and describe actual ruins in Ionia.There is also a tradition that before the battle of Plataea the Greek force swore asimilar oath, for which the Ionian oath would be a satisfactory precedent (no. 30;Lycurgus, Contra Leocratem 80-81; Diodorus 11.29.1). The provisions of this oath were apparently followed in Athens for about a generation.
Special arrangements were made to commemorate the victory of Plataea in the famous Covenant of Plataea (Aristides 21.1-2). Festival games, the Eleutheria, were instituted in connection with the worship of Zeus Eleutherios, a Panhellenic force levied to continue the war against Persia, and Plataea itself left sacred and inviolate. The city was indeed destroyed in both the fifth and fourth centuries but the Plataeans did appeal to the covenant made in their behalf (Thuc. 2.71.2 ans 3.58.4). The worship of Zeus Eleutherios also seems to be attested by Thucydides (2.71.2), although there are no inscriptions of the fifth century recording his worship. An inscription of Roman date, however, records a victor at the Eleutheria (Syll.3 1064). There seems no reason to doubt that such a covenant was made.
Certain periods of activity in the commemoration of the Persian Wars can be discerned. After each of the battles the dead were buried on the battlefield and a trophy set up to mark the site of victory. Dedications were made in important sanctuaries such as Delphi and Olympia and in the cities to the gods who had aided the victories. Depending on how each city felt about a victory, the process of dedication might continue for several years or even decades.
After Marathon, for instance, the Athenians started a great program of building in pentelic marble on the Acropolis. They began the Old Parthenon (no. 20) and the Old Propylon (no. 21). At the same time they sent a dedicatory offering to Apollo at Delphi which they displayed prominently on a base outside the Athenian treasury (no. 9).
After Salamis and Plataea the Panhellenic force sent dedications to Delphi, Olympia and the Isthmus (nos. 25-27). A covenant was made whereby Plataea became a hieros choros (no. 31) and the worship of Zeus Eleutherios was established there (no. 33). Athens built at Delphi a splendid portico to house the cables of Xerxes’ bridge over the Hellespont (no. 43). These were the major monuments set up in the decades immediately following the great victories of 490 and 480/79.
Even after 470 there was continued activity in commemorating the wars. In Athens the bones of Theseus were recovered from the island of Skyros and buried in a special sanctuary built for him (no. 19). The Stoa Poikile was built and in it displayed the painting of the battle of marathon (no. 14). The famous statue group of gods, heroes, and Miltiades was sent by the Athenins to Delphi (no. 17). In the 450’s the bronze statue of Athena was set up on the Acropolis (no. 18) and the temple of Athena Areia rebuilt in Plataea (no. 24).
Meanwhile the Amphiktyons and various cities set up stelae with epigrams on the field at Thermopylae (nos. 76-78) and another stele was put up at Artemisium by the Athenians (no. 50). There were probably also some stelae with epigrams over the tombs at Plataea (no. 33).
Finally, the Spartans instituted a ceremony whereby the Thermopylae heroes were worshipped at Sparta, for which a dirge had been composed by Simonides (nos. 36, 38). The bones of Leonidas were brought from Thermopylae (cf. no. 79) and reburied at Sparta near the tomb of Pausanias (no. 36).
We may note that in the commemoration of the Persian Wars the periods of most intense activity were, quite naturally, the decades following the battles. Later, toward the middle of the fifth century, there was another period of great activity for about twenty years.
A final word must be said concerning the completeness of the literary tradition. Macan (1907,2: 6-7, n.1) believed that a fairly complete list of the major monuments once in existence could be compiled from literary sources. Regarding public monuments, this seems largely to be true. It is altogether unlikely that here were more Panhellenic dedications for the wars in general than the three cited by Herodotus (9.81; nos. 25-27). Moreover, we know of Panhellenic monuments for Salamis alone (nos. 28, 29) and for Plataea alone (nos. 30-34), the great sea and land battles of the Greek victory.
The picture is admittedly less complete when we consider the activity of individual cities. Only for Athens can a reasonably full list be compiled, for the wars in general and for the individual battles. Of these Marathon was obviously the favorite victory (cf. nos. 14, 17, 18, 20, 21).
Of the other Greek cities, however, there are few surviving monuments. In the case of many it is not surprising because of lack of necessary wealth. In the case of Sparta it may have been the natural Spartan disdain for art. Nevertheless some Spartan monuments are represented and there are more than a few monuments commemorating Thermopylae (nos. 36, 37-39; cf. nos. 76-79). The fact that Leonidas was reburied at Sparta after the battle and a dirge composed for the Thermopylae heroes, which may have been sung at Sparta (no. 38), may be paralleled with the Athenian commemoration at Marathon of the achievement of the heroes of that battle (no. 5).
The monuments at Corinth (nos. 63-6) seem designed to proclaim Corinth’s achievement in the Persian Wars despite the unfavorable account of Herodotus (8.94). Finally, we hear of a few dedications at Delphi by other cities (nos. 67, 69, 74, 75, 80, 84, 89, 90) and monuments in some of the cities (nos. 68, 70, 71, 73, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88). It appears that the literary tradition is moderately complete with regard to public monuments but archaeological discovery may provide many other private memorials.
The most imposing monuments in the cities were the temples of important gods and the religious shrines, although the impulse for monumental; building at Athens provided by the victory at Marathon was smothered by the Oath of Plataea. Consequently, although the Old Parthenon was begun shortly after 490, it was left in ruins after the destruction of 480. There was, however, a sanctuary for Pan (no. 16), a temple of Eukleia (no. 15), a shine for Boreas (no. 51) and one for Theseus (no. 19). After 450 the Odeum of Pericles was built in imitation of the tent of Xerxes (no. 59) and the Eleutherios Stoa was built with a statue of Zeus Eleutherios in front of it (no. 45).
A temple of Athena Areia was built at Plataea (no. 24) along with an altar establishing the worship of Zeus Eleutherios (no. 33). In Sparta a shrine was built for the Thermopylae heroes Maron and Alpheius (no. 36). We hear of few buildings in other cities, however, probably because of the prohibitions of the Oath of Plataea.
Although the evidence is not so complete as one should like, it does lead to several conclusions. First, many cities and the Panhellenic League made dedications at Delphi in gratitude for the repulse of Xerxes’ invasion. There were some dedications at other Panhellenic sanctuaries by the League (such as Olympia and the Isthmus) but few by individual cities (cf. nos. 54, 60).
Secondly, Athens is the best represented of the cities. We may observe that she made dedications in the sanctuaries and set up monuments within the city, feeling the prohibition of the Oath of Plataea for a long time and then rebuilding out of necessity. There was some building at Sparta and we hear of some of the monuments at Corinth but have only sporadic notices of the monuments of other cities. Of the thirty-one states of the serpent column (no. 25) we have no notice of monuments of Sicyon, Orchomenus, Phlius, Tiryns, Mycenae, Ceos, Melos, Tenos, Eretria, Chalcis, Styra, Elea, Potidaea, Leucas, Anactorium, Cythnos, Siphnos, Ambracia, or Lepreum.
Reasons for the failure of information may be lack of interest or of wealth, not to mention the general pro-Athenian nature of the tradition. Nevertheless it is surprising that we hear nothing of them. It is likely that each of these cities had some commemorative monument of the Persian Wars.
Finally, apart from some buildings, most of the monuments are connected with religious motives. The base of the Marathon epigrams, however, may have supported Herms and is possibly to be considered a victory monument. There seems to be other evidence for this type of monument in Athens (cf. the Eion Herms, Aeschines 3.183-186, and the painting of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile, no. 14).
Preceding the catalogue of evidence  all monuments are listed in tabular form according to the numbers assigned to them.
[ back ] 1. Herodotus, the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Books, vol. 2 (London, 1908) 6-7 n. 1. For occasional mention earlier than Macan’s work of some of the relevant monuments as sources for history, see, especially, E. Curtius, “Weihgeschenke nach den Perserkriegen,” NGG (1861) 361-390 and N. Wecklein, “Über die Tradition der Perserkriege,” SBAW (1876) 243-314.
[ back ] 2. E. Nachmanson, Historische Attische Inschriften (Bonn, 1913) nos. 3-5; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, IG I2 (Berlin, 1924) pp. 274-276; M. N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1945) nos. 13-21; J. Kirchner, Imagines Inscriptionum Atticarum, rev. ed. by G. Klaffenbach (Berlin, 1948) nos. 18, 19.
[ back ] 3. “Die Inschriften im Geschichtwerk des Herodots,” Convivium: Festschrift für Konrat Ziegler (1954) 41-65.
[ back ] 4. On the meaning of fame, especially as it applies to monuments, see H. R. Immerwahr, “Ergon: History as a Monument in Herodotus and Thucydides,” AJP 81 (1960) 260-291 and G. Steinkopf 1937. Cf. B. B. Shefton 1950: 153-155.
[ back ] 5. On the meaning of fame, especially as it applies to monuments, see H. R. Immerwahr, “Ergon: History as a Monument in Herodotus and Thucydides,” AJP 81 (1960) 260-291 and G. Steinkopf 1937. Cf. B. B. Shefton 1950: 153-155.
[ back ] 6. Revelant inscriptions have been collected from various sources such as IG, especially vols. 1 and 7, and those listed in note 2. On letter forms, which are significant for dating, see especially Raubitschek 1949 and Immerwahr 1990 for the Attic inscriptions and Jeffery 1961for the non-Attic ones. For inscriptions quoted only in literary authoritis see commentaries on the particular author.
[ back ] 7. This is still likely, althoug it is not certain. The suggestion has been made that they refer to Salamis (Cf. no. 13). An important discovery has recently indicated that the fragments came from the Demosion Sema north of the Acropolis and a large monument for the Persian Wars was erected there (Matthaiou 1989).
[ back ] 8. Jeffery 1961 classiified the alphabet as Corinthian but Carpenter (1963a: 81-83) claims that it is Megarian. See the discussion under no.64.
[ back ] 9. See Reitzenstein 1893; Hauvette 1894; Reitzenstein 1909: 71-111; Wade-Gery 1933: Friedländer 1938-1939; Jacoby 1945; and Peek 1955. Useful collections of select epigrams are: Geffcken 1916; Hiller 1926; and Peek 1960.
[ back ] 10. Two epigrams are discussed as no. 76.
[ back ] 11. See, on this point, Theander 1950-1951: 17,22-23.
[ back ] 12. On monuments in Heroedotus see especially Macan 1907 and How and Wells 1912, 1-2. The Budé edition (Legrand 1948-1961, 1-10) has notes, which are frequently helpful.
[ back ] 13. See, e. g., Raubitschek 1939: 217-222.
[ back ] 14. See Immerwahr 1960: 262-275.
[ back ] 15. Excellent historical information is contained in Gomme 1945-1956. Gomme frequently comments on Persian War monuments when they are relevant to illustrating Thucydides.
[ back ] 16. Testimonia for all the monuments in the Athenian Agora are given by Wycherley 1957. Also useful on Athenian monuments, especially non-extant ones, is Hill 1953.
[ back ] 17. On the relation beteen Ephorus and Diodorus see Barber 1935.
[ back ] 18. Strabo says that there were five stelae on the field at Thermopylae, for instance. Herodotus quotes only three epigrams. Strabo quotes another epigram, for the Opuntian Locrians, and from the point of style, it seems to be a fifth century poem (no. 77). To consider another late author, Vitruvius describes the Persian Stoa at Sparta, which is not mentioned by any early author (no. 38). His notice that the Odeum of Pericles was built from the timbers of Persian ships (no. 70) may perhaps be confirmed by Plutarch’s quotation of a fragment of the fifth century comedian Cratinus (Pericles 13.5).
[ back ] 19. Useful commentaries on Plutarch include Perrin 1901 and Limentani 1964. Perrin has a translation only with notes; Limentani uses the text of Ziegler and has supplied her own notes. Both books have excellent introductions which discuss Plutarch’s sources and the historical value of his information. See also Gomme 1945-1956,1: 54-84; Theander 1950-1951: 1-86; and Ziegler 1951: 636-962.
[ back ] 20. Pausanias mistakenly dates the building of the Athenian treasury at Delphi during the years after Marathon (10.11.5) and the building of the Athenian portico at Delphi during the early years of the Peloponnesian War (10.11.6). On the value of Pausanias as a source see Robert 1909 and Regenbogen 1956:1008-1097.
[ back ] 21. On portrait statues in the fifth century see Richter 1955: 15-20 and Miltner 1952: 72. Wycherley 1957: 207 briefly discusses the evidence for portrait statues and concludes that they were probably not in the Agora in the fifth century.
[ back ] 22. Other late writers who preserve notices of monuments include Aristides (no. 69); Scholiast on Aristides (nos. 46, 65); Athenaeus (no. 63); Palatine Anthology (nos. 39, 42, 62, 65, 87) and Stephanus of Byzantium (no. 78).
[ back ] 23. Archaeological material is to be found chiefly in numerous periodicals, especially AJA, Hesperia, ABSA, BCH, JDAI, and MDAI(A). In addition, for architecture, see Robertson 1943, Dinsmoor 1950, Lawrence 1957, and Berve and Gruben 1961; for sculpture, see Richter 1950; for numismatics see Head 1912 and Seltman 1924; for work on individual sites, see Kirsten and Kraiker 1962 and, especially, for the Athenian Agora, Wycherley 1957; for Delphi, see Pomtow 1901:2517-2700 and Schober 1931: 59-152; for Olympia, the Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia, Ziehen 1937: 2520-2536, and Wiesner 1959: 1-174.
[ back ] 24. Pausanias (1.29.14) mentions the Eurymedon grave in his account of the Kerameikos. Jacoby 1944 argues that the Athenians did not begin burying their war dead in the Kerameikos until 465/4, after the disaster at Drabeskos, according to the evidence of Pausanias 1.29.4; he explains the apparent discrepancy as an exception to the usual practice made before the exception became the rule. Cf. J. Ziolkowski 1963.
[ back ] 25. Jacoby 1944; but see also the criticism of Gomme 1945-1956,2: 94-101.
[ back ] 26. On stelae of the early fifth century see Richter 1961: 53-55.
[ back ] 27. Pausanias 1.29.4. See also Jacoby 1944.
[ back ] 28. Cf. Hauvette 1894: 38; Peek 1955: 5 and 1960: 2.
[ back ] 29. All the cities listed by Herodotus are to be found in the Spartan list on the serpent column (cf. no. 25).
[ back ] 30. The epigram is cited as a single distich by these authorities. Aristides (2,512 Dindorf) gives an expanded version of three distichs, probably a literary addition.
[ back ] 31. See, for instance, no. 42 (Sparta); no. 62 (Athens) and no. 87 (Tegea).
[ back ] 32. See Lammert 1939. For an excellent discussion of trophies of the Greeks in the fifth and fourth centuries B. C., see Charles-Picard 1957: 16-100.
[ back ] 33. Cf. Nonius, quoting Varro: Tropaei significantiam propriam Varro Bimarco ostendit: ideo fuga hostium Graeca vocatur trope; hinc spoliis capta, fixa in stipitibus, appelantur tropaea.
[ back ] 34. Cf.. Orlandos 1925: 321-322.
[ back ] 35. Types of votive mouments are discussed, with numerous illustrations from the Persian Wars, by Reisch 1890 and Rouse 1902. See also Raubitschek 1943: 17-39 and 1949.
[ back ] 36. See Nilsson 1950: 74. The suitability of an area, it was felt, expressed the continuity of a cult associated with it.
[ back ] 37. Marathon (no. 8); Salamis (no. 28); Plataea (nos. 58, 60, 61, 88 Mycale and the Hellespontine campaign (no. 43).
[ back ] 38. See Broneer 1944: 305-312 and Thompson 1956: 281-291.
[ back ] 39. See Meritt 1956: 268-280; cf. Broc 1963: 47. But Matthaiou 1989 now has been able to show that the epigrams were part of a monument set up in the Demosion Sema.
[ back ] 40. Pausanias (1.14.5) refers to the Temple of Eukleia as an anathema, which, strictly speaking, it is not.
[ back ] 41. The individual monuments have been grouped in chronological units, according to the separate battles they commemorated. Within these units they are arranged in certain more or less associated groups. Under each battle Panhellenic monuments are given first; then the monuments of individual cities are cited. Under each city the arrangement is principally by types of monuments: trophies are listed first, then the funerary monuments, followed by dedications and other monuments, religious and secular.This arrangement pays some attention to chronology, although a strict chronological order has been found to be impractical. The purpose of using chronology at all has been the desire to preserve an indication of the progress of commemoration of each battle. Needless to say, in the period with which we are dealing, the Pentekontaetia essentially, chronology is imperfectly known and there is much overlapping in the commemoration of the various battles.