Dignas, Beate, and Kai Trampedach, eds. 2008. Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Figures from Homer to Heliodorus. Hellenic Studies Series 30. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_DignasB_and_TrampedachK_eds.Practitioners_of_the_Divine.2008.
6. Images and Prestige of Cult Personnel in Athens between the Sixth and First Centuries BC*
Ralf von den Hoff
In the poleis of ancient Greece, priests and priestesses rarely had permanent political, social, or economic power as a group and outside their sanctuaries.  On the other hand, everyone would agree that priests were an essential component of every Greek polis.  One aspect of their position was their high prestige; that is, their reputation and informal authority.  In ancient Greece, prestige was defined by and recognizable through various cultural practices. Images set up in the public sphere—statues, reliefs, or paintings initiated by the depicted persons or by others—were focal means of demonstrating prestige. Indeed, a large number of such portraits of cult officials are preserved from the Greek poleis. These testimonia have been catalogued and analyzed. But considering the debate about the roles of priests and priestesses in Greek poleis, it seems decidedly unusual that they have not been studied under the specific perspective of prestige presentation.  In this essay, I will try to do so in a chronological overview. My purpose is to trace the changing role and importance of images of cult personnel in relation to their prestige. Those elements of priestly functions and qualities will be discussed which were crucial for the setting up of these images, in order to understand the basis on which the reputation and authority of priests was founded and to describe the public discourse that used this reputation as social capital. The category cult personnel includes all persons responsible for cult activities who held a certain office which was not solely administrative in function.  I am going to examine portrait images of cult personnel, although other—and possibly more important—means of defining prestige did exist and would also be worth studying. However, I will not restrict my interest to preserved images. Rather, all epigraphic, literary, and archaeological records will be studied, insofar as they refer to images. Such a synoptic approach has for long been neglected and thus appears particularly necessary and fruitful.  Athens between the sixth and first centuries BC has been chosen as a case study due to the large corpus of surviving records, which allows us to trace historical changes over this period. I will focus primarily, but not exclusively, on the Acropolis as Athens’ most important sanctuary, in which public roles and the prestige of cult personnel can be expected to be expressed best, although other contexts such as grave monuments and other sanctuaries would need further investigation.  Two questions will guide me through the relevant testimonia:
- What were the changing functions and aims of images of cult personnel?
- Which qualities of the depicted cult personnel were emphasized in these images, that is, how was prestige defined and how was it articulated visually?
Starting with the Archaic period, we do not know of any statues of cult officials, explicitly defined as such, from Athens in the sixth century BC. It has been claimed that the more than seventy korai from the Acropolis were images of servants of Athena, such as ergastinai, kanēphoroi, arrhēphoroi, or priestesses of the goddess.  Yet these figures could also be dedicated to Poseidon (IG I3 828), who had no female cult officials, and they do not display any attributes identifying them as divine or mythological figures or as cult personnel.  Equally significant is the fact that they bear no individual names. Rather, in the inscriptions, they are simply called korē, aparkhē , or perikallēs agalma. This is in contrast to named statues on the Acropolis, and to named korai in other sanctuaries, which, however, are also never identified as cult personnel by their inscriptions. Thus, it remains the most plausible explanation that the Athenian korai were primarily dedications to Athena (or to other gods), rather than being intended to represent living persons.  Neither any identification as specific individuals nor any clue to cult functions is readily recognizable. As precious and expensive agalmata, the korai served to demonstrate the wealth and piety (eusebeia) of their male dedicators. Wealthy male citizens also used these votives as visual confirmation of the social role of women as objects of exchange and as visual demonstration of normative female behavior. 
The lack of explicit depictions of cult personnel on the Archaic Acropolis is the more noteworthy because statues of specific individuals were placed in this sanctuary during the sixth century. Even statues of civic officials were set up there, such as the sitting “scribes,” possibly tamiai.  Furthermore, elsewhere in Greece, identifiable portraits of cult officials are known from the Archaic period. From Didyma, the marble figure of a man is preserved, who wears an unusual mantle and is holding a scepter (fig. 1). This possibly identified him as a seer in Apollo’s sanctuary.  His sitting posture was a common pattern of representation for members of the political elite, especially in the East. Key-bearers (kleidoukhoi) were depicted in small, korē-like terracotta figurines from the Artemis sanctuary in Cercyra,  while in Miletus, the marble statue of a korē could be equipped with a lituus-like staff to demonstrate the cult function of the woman being portrayed.  These images document the fact that conventional statue types (a korē, a sitting man) did serve to depict cult personnel in Archaic Greece, while distinct attributes, related to sacred authority (scepter, key), were used as symbols of their specific cult functions. Since such portraits are completely lacking from Athens, it appears that, in this polis, cult officials did not choose to represent themselves or to publicly define their status in this way during the Archaic period, even if concern with cult status was not entirely excluded from the competitive practices of Athenian aristocrats. Nevertheless, the prestige associated with cult and ritual itself was high, considering the scenes of processions and sacrifices on Attic vases of this period. 
In the fifth century, according to Pliny’s Natural History 34.54 and Cicero’s Against Verres 2.5.5, statues of both kanēphoroi (by Polyclitus) and kleidoukhoi (by Phidias) existed in Greece.  If the relief from Mantinea with a woman inspecting the liver of an animal was set up in honor of a female seer, this would be further evidence for images of cult personnel in the Classical period.  But still no such records from Athens have been preserved—either from the Acropolis or from other areas of the city. This is astonishing, because, also in this period, we know of votive statues of other Athenian individuals, such as athletes, civic servants, and stratēgoi being set up on the Acropolis.  The statue group of the stratēgos Tolmides with his seer beside him (Pausanias 1.27.4–5) is a revealing example.  Placed on the Acropolis around the middle of the fifth century, the purpose of this group was to demonstrate Tolmides’ military success. The seer was not meant to be a cult official in his own right, but represented the eusebeia of Tolmides himself.  In Athens, mention of individuals as holding cult offices was avoided even in inscriptions, as is evidenced by the case of Callias, son of Hipponicus. He fought successfully at Marathon in the position of Eleusinian dadoukhos, while he was, indeed, wearing his priestly garment (Plutarch Aristides 5). Despite this highly renowned act, he did not mention his priestly office in a dedicatory inscription on the Acropolis some years later (IG I3 835).  Instead, he calls himself hipponikos in reference to his Olympic victories, which obviously were more prestigious than his position as dadoukhos.
It is on the Acropolis, in the frieze of the Parthenon (447–438 BC), that the first explicit representations of Athenian cult officials appear in the public sphere. In the Panathenaic procession, depicted in the northern, southern, and western parts of this frieze, distinct cult officials cannot be identified, although some participants carry cult objects and all are engaged in the rites of the cult.  In the most prominent eastern frieze, the women leading the procession are also carrying cult utensils (East 2–15, 55, 57–63).  Although here younger parthenoi and older women are distinguished by dress and hairdo,  we are still unable to identify holders of distinct cult offices, except for two possible kanēphoroi (East 50–51).  It is only in the central scene—above the entrance and framed by the gods themselves—that priests are depicted (fig. 2). One male figure (East 34) wears the long, ungirded khitōn which was the typical dress of priests.  This dress and the very prominent position point rather to an official representative of the polis than to a member of the genos of the Praxiergidae without an official priestly position, as has been recently suggested.  Thus, he is probably best identified as the arkhōn basileus.  He holds Athena’s peplos. Behind him, two girls (East 31–32) are welcomed by a larger woman (East 33). In such a position, related to the Panathenaea and above the entrance to Athena’s temple, the priestess of the goddess must be depicted. She is slightly smaller than her male counterpart and is not clothed distinctively. Thus, iconographically, the priest is highlighted and distinguished from usual civic images, while the priestess is not. This will become a common pattern in Athenian images of cult personnel. The two girls in front of the priestess are carrying stools, but it is uncertain whether they are the official diphrophoroi.  Because of her size, the girl on the left (East 31) is certainly the youngest female participant in the entire frieze. She is highlighted by her frontal posture, which would make an identification as arrhēphoros probable, except that the stool may militate against this conclusion.  Taken all together, in keeping with the Archaic Attic tradition, the Parthenon frieze was not intended primarily to depict individual cult officials by means of well-defined iconographical patterns. Instead, it staged the whole dēmos of Athens as active participants in the cult: an icon of tōn Athēnaiōn eusebeia. Indeed, the Athenians later claimed that their eusebeia towards the gods made them superior to all other poleis (Lycurgus Against Leocrates 15). Only in the eastern frieze are two high cult officials present, framed by and close to the gods, and thus distinguished: the most important woman in Athena’s cult, who was a member of the genos of the Eteoboutadae, with two girls as her attendants, and the most important man in the polis-cult as a whole, who was chosen by lot each year, with a male attendant. This choice programmatically included both hereditary and democratic priesthoods.  Further, the fact that the priest is taller than the priestess, and that his bearing of Athena’s robe makes his role more prestigious, points to the precedence of men in the polis-cult. At the same time, both the presence of two female attendants in this scene, as opposed to only one male attendant for the priest, and the prominent position of women in the Panathenaic procession as a whole, were certainly due to the female gender of the deity to whom the temple was dedicated, and suggest that women were by no means unimportant in the Athenian cultic context. Thus, gender and sociopolitical roles were distinguished precisely: they resulted in hierarchies and different ways of participation in the cult, as well as in different priestly dress. Yet these first public Athenian images of cult officials were still not meant to be depictions of historical individuals. Rather, they were signa of civic eusebeia embedded within the Athēnaiōn dēmos as a whole. They represented positions rather than individuals, and signified the importance of cult activities in the polis and the idea that cult officials acted primarily in the service and on behalf of the city and her piety, and not according to their own desire for prestige.
It was immediately after the erection of the Parthenon, in the late fifth century, that this situation began to change. From this time on and through the fourth century, priests and priestesses were depicted on Attic grave reliefs (figs. 3–4).  Here, for the first time, cult personnel were individually named on public images, although in this genre of monument, references to professional activities were normally very rare. Priests (fig. 3) wear the long khitōn, which is already known from the Parthenon frieze, and they usually hold a knife in their hand as a sign of their ability to perform sacrifices. Priestesses, on the other hand (fig. 4), are represented in common civic dress, as in the frieze, but now they frequently hold a temple key.  Again, gender distinctions are obvious: priestesses are not distinguished by their dress, but defined by their administrative authority (key), while priests are clearly distinguished by their garment as well as being defined as performers of bloody rituals (knife). It is noteworthy that, in Athens, such individualized images of cult personnel were introduced in funerary art, albeit in small reliefs rather than in the elaborate naiskoi of the wealthy families. Thus, the members of the elite—in charge of the hereditary priesthoods and monopolising ritual expertise—did not use their prominent grave monuments to advertise their role in the cult. Rather, they did so only in smaller reliefs, and it was the middle class who visually represented their eusebeia and services for the polis in prestigious priestly positions, which they certainly gained by way of lot or election.  Not everyone who was in a position to do so, however, actually took the opportunity: witness the grave stēlai of a family of seers from Brauron, and the grave lēkuthos of Myrrhine, first priestess of Athena Nike. She is depicted without any attributes referring to the position she held. Instead, the image focuses on her relationship to the gods—that is, her eusebeia—which in itself seems to have been more prestigious than the cult office. 
Despite the increasing number of grave reliefs with cult personnel, priests or priestesses do not appear on Attic votive reliefs of the fourth century, although the preparation of sacrifices is depicted.  This is certainly due to the fact that these reliefs were dedicated by citizens who were not priests. Thus, by showing the dedicator’s autonomous sacrificial act, they aimed at demonstrating his eusebeia, which did not necessitate the presence of a priest. It is also in the early fourth century that the first honors for Athenians as religious officials are recorded (IG II2 1140). This happened at the same time as the first honorific statues for Athenian citizens after the Tyrannicides were also set up.  This change is also discernible on the Acropolis, for example, on the fragments of a marble relief from this sanctuary which was carved during the early fourth century (fig. 5).  Accompanied by other divine figures, Athena is adorning a smaller woman (with a wreath?), who is piously raising her hand towards the goddess in a gesture of prayer. Considering the provenance of the relief, and that it was the upper part of an honorary decree in which the woman must have been the honorée, it is reasonable to conclude that a female member of the Acropolis cult personnel is depicted here. She may have been the priestess of Athena herself, although no key is depicted as a definite sign of this position. In the mid-fourth century and the era of Lycurgus, the number of honors awarded to Athenian cult personnel increased (IG II2 354; 410; 1199). The relief of an honorific decree for a priest of the tribe Antiochis is additional visual evidence of this trend.  Also from the Acropolis comes another relief recording honors for a woman (fig. 6).  Dated on stylistic grounds to around 340–320, Nike, flying from Athena’s hand, crowns a smaller woman, who is holding a temple key and who again raises her hand towards the deity. She must be a priestess of Athena and thus a member of the genos of the Eteoboutadae.  These fourth-century testimonia reveal the growing prestige attached to cult offices in terms of awards granted by the polis.  Now, individual honors, especially for the old genē holding the hereditary priesthoods, were documented visually on the Acropolis. However, honorific statues for cult personnel set up by dēmos and boulē were yet to be placed in this sanctuary. 
Private votive statues depicting cult officials seem to have compensated for this absence. The base of the life-size bronze statue of Lysimache is the earliest surviving example from the Acropolis (IG II2 3453; fig. 7).  As a priestess of Athena, Lysimache came from the genos of the Eteoboutadae. Her bronze statue was set up posthumously around 360, most probably by a member of her family. The inscription especially highlights the fact that she had seen generations of children; she died after sixty-four years in office, at eighty years of age. So far, efforts to identify copies of this portrait statue made by Demetrius of Alopece (Pliny Natural History 34.76) have not been convincing,  but a female head of possibly slightly earlier date, preserved in Roman copies in London (figs. 8a–8b) and Rome, gives an idea of such a portrait of an old priestess.  Her old age, like that reflected in this portrait, her lifelong service for Athena and for the polis, proved Lysimache’s eusebeia and thus made such an extraordinary (and, as far as we know, hitherto unknown) statue of a priestess on the Acropolis possible. Nonetheless, as is seen from the epigraphic formula, it was not an official honor granted by dēmos and boulē. Instead, the Eteoboutadae themselves took the opportunity to demonstrate their particular religious engagement for the polis with such a prominent votive monument.  They emphasized their own prestige in religious affairs, while at the same time approximating this statue to the honors awarded by the polis to other priestesses of the same genos, which were documented on the Acropolis in the reliefs mentioned above.
Lysimache’s statue, the grave-reliefs, and the public honors indicate that, in the late fifth and fourth century, for the first time, the prestige associated with a cult office became the subject of individual representation in the Athenian visual culture. By the same token, an element of competition in demonstrating this prestige emerged, a trend which the eupatridai seem to have reinforced. Yet, if we consider the grave reliefs and other individual records, it becomes clear that this phenomenon had broader dimensions.  In contrast to ordinary Athenian citizens, who used these reliefs merely to document their cult positions, the elite sought to demonstrate their eusebeia in Athena’s sanctuary itself, which thus became the locus of the display of prestige associated with cult offices. In view of the fact that the elite could parade themselves in the central sanctuary of the city, religious representation on their prominent grave monuments may have been redundant.
The sociopolitical changes of the late fourth century were not without consequences for the representation of cult personnel on the Athenian Acropolis: the elite sought to preserve its religious hegemony, while the middle classes tried to display elite-like qualities. From 317/07 on, grave reliefs were forbidden by law: thereby, the opportunity to document cult engagement in the nekropoleis vanished altogether.  At the same time, the Acropolis became a focal point of Athenian identity construction, especially in the religious sphere, and also the preferred setting for official statues of the most highly honored Athenians.  Such a context led the members of the wealthy genē to maintain the position they had established in this sanctuary by means of votive images of cult officials. The Eteoboutadae imposed this competitive demonstration of prestige on the Acropolis to an unprecedented degree.  Habron, Lycurgus’ son and successor as hereditary priest of Poseidon, shortly before his death around 305, dedicated a painting (pinax) on the Acropolis (Pausanias 1.26.1).  In this painting, Ismenias of Chalcis depicted the family’s genealogy (katagōgē) in life-size figures,  including the last three priests of Poseidon: Lycomedes, his son Lycurgus, and Lycurgus’ son Habron ([Plutarch] Moralia 843e–f). Habron, the dedicator, is seen handing over the trident to his brother Lycophron. Habron did not have any children, and so had to make other arrangements for his succession: Lycophron had a son.  Thus, the monumental painting was an assertion of the Lycurgus family’s legitimacy and of the continuity in holding their hereditary priestly office.  The pinax was located inside the Erechtheum, which was also the principal office of the Eteoboutad priests of Poseidon and, at the same time, the cult place of their ancestor Butes with the throne of his priest (IG II2 5166). Later, the painting hung beside a gallery of images (graphai) of the Eteoboutad priests of Poseidon in the same room (Pausanias 1.26.5), but it is unclear if the first of these images was dedicated in the Classical period or later.  Nonetheless, in the late fourth century, Ismenias’ painting was not enough for the Eteoboutadae: also inside the Erechtheum, a statue group of Lycurgus with his three sons Habron, Lycurgus, and Lycophron was dedicated ([Plutarch] Moralia 843e–f). The lifetime of these subjects suggests a date after around 330/20; since the sons of Praxiteles, Timarchus and Cephisodotus, carved the statues, a date before around 290 is probable, although we do not know which of those depicted was the dedicator.  The group is a further demonstration of the family’s genealogy. During the second half of the fourth century, it was not unusual to set up such family monuments on the Acropolis.  What was unusual was the material of the Eteoboutadae’s statues: wood. This linked them to the old and venerable wooden xoana on the Acropolis, such as the cult image of Athena not far from the statues themselves (Pausanias 1.26.6; Apollodorus Library 3.14.6).  A wooden statue of Hermes also stood in the Erechtheum, supposedly dedicated by Cecrops, the mythical king of Attica (Pausanias 1.27.1). In this local and material context, the wooden statue group of Lycurgus and his sons must have connoted the sacred tradition and antiquity of the Eteoboutadae’s cult engagement. In the years before 290, a statue of a priestess of Athena added to the visual presence of this genos (IG II2 3455).  She was a member of the other line of the family, in charge of the priesthood of Athena Polias,  and was most probably called Lysimache like her well-known predecessor. The portrait statue was dedicated by her son and set up during her lifetime. Besides the Eteoboutadae, other families also sought to advertise their cult position by setting up votive statues on the Acropolis. The statue of Pheidostrate, priestess of Aglauros from the genos of the Salaminioi and sister of the politically active Chremonides, was placed there sometime around 300 BC (IG II2 3459).  Not far away, Pheidostrate herself dedicated a statue of her father Eteocles (IG II2 3458); he had previously been honored for his engagement in the Eleusinian cult (IG II2 1933.11), and was one of the first agōnothetai of Dionysus after 317/07. He himself dedicated a statue in the theater of Dionysus (IG II2 3845).
In short, between around 330/20 and the early third century, the families of the Athenian elite tried to enhance their visual presence on the Acropolis by dedicating multiple portraits of family members—statues and paintings, of individuals and groups, in and outside prestigious cult offices. This trend was new in terms of quality and quantity. In the case of the Eteoboutadae, material and context reveal that this demonstration was ideologically based on the family’s long genealogy, which ostensibly provided a link to Athens’ mythical past. It also touched on the legitimacy of the hereditary character of their priesthoods, that is, on traditional claims of expertise and power. At the same time, such dedications were now often set up while the depicted cult official was still alive,  so that they lent luster to the living families. This went far beyond the two prevailing interests of the earlier period: to demonstrate eusebeia and to document service on behalf of the polis. In the case of genē like the Eteoboutadae or the Salaminioi, this development cannot be separated from political pretensions. The Acropolis thus became a point of crystallization, where families competed to visually consolidate their prestige within society through the recording of their cult activities. 
Unfortunately, we lack precise information about how such Athenian statues of cult officials—mostly made of reusable bronze—looked. To infer from the evidence of the Parthenon frieze and the grave reliefs, we might suppose that priests were portrayed wearing the long khitōn, although this dress is not previously recorded for freestanding statues. Klaus Fittschen has suggested that the head of a beardless man from Athens with a myrtle wreath belongs to the late third century BC (figs. 9a–9b).  Such wreaths were typically worn by the Eleusinian hierophants, but often in addition to a strophion. The fact that nonpriestly officials could also receive such a crown casts into question the statement that the depicted person was indeed a priest.  However, if this were the case, it would demonstrate that such images followed the modern fashion of shaving in contrast to the traditional appearance of, for instance, bearded philosophers in this period. In light of the visual testimonia discussed above, statues of priestesses should have worn the conventional khitōn with a himation above it during the fourth and third century. This is also illustrated by the early Hellenistic statue of Aristonoe, priestess of Nemesis from Rhamnus (fig. 10).  She has a rounded strophion in her hair, like the head compared above to Lysimache’s portrait. This was apparently a priestly attribute. With a phialē in her right hand, Aristonoe is pouring out a libation; obviously, the temple key was not the only attribute of statues of priestesses in this period. Rather, other utensils and gestures could also underline the cult activities and, by the same token, the eusebeia of the depicted person.  Finally, Aristonoe’s portrait—and possibly also the male head mentioned above—demonstrates that marble as well as bronze was used for statues of cult personnel in Attic sanctuaries.
During the third century BC, possibly as a reaction to the conspicuous visual demonstration of cult activities by the elite, the practice of setting up images of cult officials on the Acropolis changed its character. For the first time, we now find even statues of less important cult personnel, like the small-scale statue (or relief) of Syeris, the aged servant (diakonos) of Athena’s priestess Lysimache. In view of the epigram inscribed on the base, a Hellenistic date is more convincing for the statue than the identification of Syeris’ mistress with the fourth-century priestess Lysimache.  The image was set up by Syeris herself. Her age certainly justified her doing so: old age was a topos for the qualification of cult officials (Plato Laws 759d). The scale of the image reflected Syeris’ minor role in holding a secondary office; furthermore, she was possibly of Egyptian origin. By its comparatively smaller size, the votive also enhanced the high status of the real priestesses, who were visually present in the same sanctuary; indeed, a statue of Syeris’ superior was set up not far away (IG II2 3455).
It was also in the third century that, for the first time, statues of arrhēphoroi were set up on the Acropolis. These four young girls, between seven and eleven years old, were elected every year and lived on the Acropolis for the time of their office. They were in charge of the traditional ritual of the Arrhephoria (Pausanias 1.27.3); two of them, chosen by the arkhōn basileus, attended to the weaving of Athena’s peplos.  Only the inscribed bases of their bronze statues are preserved. The first of this series belong to the second quarter of the third century (IG II2 3470, 3471, 3472). Later examples date from the late third through the first century BC (IG II2 3461, 3466, 3473, 3488, 3496, 3497), and from the imperial period.  Hence, this is in fact the largest group of portrait statues from the Hellenistic Acropolis. A statue of an arrhēphoros was dedicated either to Athena or to Pandrosus, who was related to the Arrhephoria. It was usually set up shortly after the end of the girl’s official duties, and her father was the dedicator, thus highlighting the families’ rather than the girls’ prestige.  In the fourth century, paying for the Arrhēphoria was a leitourgia (Lysias 21.5), a privilege of the wealthiest families, while the arrhēphoroi themselves had to be of good birth (eugenēs). This does not refer to a legally defined social group, and may imply nothing more than a long Attic ancestry. Further, the fact that the arrhēphoroi were elected is a sign of the originally nonaristocratic character of her office.  Consequently, they were not necessarily members of the eupatridai, although they certainly belonged to the middle or upper classes of Athens, who could afford to set up a bronze statue on the Acropolis.  At first glance, it is quite astonishing that, given the traditional prestige of the arrhēphoroi, statues of these girls were not set up earlier. However, this development confirms the view that now, in the early Hellenistic period, the practice of demonstrating religious prestige had widened its scope and was adopted by other prosperous groups of Athenians, who used for this purpose the highest office accessible to them. 
Statues of other minor cult officials are also known from the Hellenistic Acropolis, such as images of kanēphoroi. These girls were slightly older than the arrhēphoroi (ten–fifteen years old: Aristophanes Lysistrata 642–647) and had to carry the baskets with sacrificial utensils in the various cults in Athens, and at the Panathenaea.  Kanēphoroi seem to have been members of the eupatridai, witness the sister of Harmodius in the sixth century (Thucydides 6.56), and the fact that fathers of kanēphoroi had leitourgia duties in the Athenian Asclepieum.  These fathers were also obliged to pay their daughters’ costs, and nominated them without democratic procedure, which is additional evidence for the exclusive nature of this office.  The first Athenian record of a statue of a kanēphoros comes from the Acropolis and is dated to the fourth or third century BC (IG II2 3457);  the girl was also active as kanēphoros in Eleusis. The wreaths on the marble base testify to an official honorific statue;  if the early date is correct, then this is the first statue set up by dēmos and boulē for a cult official on the Acropolis. The second statue of a kanēphoros likewise comes from the Acropolis and was an official honor (IG II2 3477); it was set up during the second century BC. In contrast to statues of arrhēphoroi, then, statues of kanēphoroi were rare and not private dedications, but honors granted by the polis.  This was due perhaps to the higher social status of the girls and to the financial support which their fathers provided to the polis cult. Lycurgus had also been honored for adding to the equipment of the kanēphoroi ([Plutarch] Moralia 852a–b). To judge from these cases, the polis would seem to have occasionally acknowledged the financial engagement of the elite in the cult with honorific statues of elite families’ daughters on the Acropolis. 
On the third-century Acropolis, the new statues of minor cult officials like the arrhēphoroi signify an increasing and socially more broad-based interest in demonstrating engagement in religious offices—which had been originally an elite privilege—by imitating (originally) elite practices.  They also testify to a new social differentiation. While a broader spectrum of Athenians set up statues—possibly as an imitation of elite practices well established since the fourth century—leading families were less interested in dedicating images of their members who had been only minor cult personnel. Rather, the elite had two other possibilities open to them for asserting their prestige: they dedicated statues of their high-ranking priests, and they were awarded statues of minor cult officials by the polis. At the same time, from the third century onwards, honorific statues of cult personnel granted by the polis served to pay honor to their financial rather than merely to their religious engagement. Furthermore, compared to the small number of statues of mostly mature men and women produced in the fourth century, the considerable increase in the number of statues of young female cult officials after this period defined the sanctuary as an especially female space and as a sphere of activity for young Athenian girls. This aspect in turn added an educational dimension to the design of the sanctuary: the holding of cult offices was visually defined as the most prestigious activity of Athenian maidens, while the ephēbeia was defined as the most prestigious service of young boys by statues and honors set up in other places during the Hellenistic period. On the Acropolis, a similarly gendered pattern of normative behavior had been displayed in earlier periods, notably by the Archaic korai and by the Classical Parthenon frieze, with its clearly distinguished tasks for youths and maidens.
Again, it is quite difficult to decide about the appearance of the new images of arrhēphoroi and kanēphoroi. Since statues of kanēphoroi were still renowned in the imperial period (Pliny Natural History 36.25; Cicero Against Verres 2.5.5), and since some of the arrhēphoroi bases from the Acropolis have artists’ signatures, it is probable that Roman copies of such statues are preserved, although they have not yet been identified. One possible candidate is the statue of a maiden in the Glyptothek in Munich (fig. 11), with a replica in San Antonio (fig. 12), recently identified by Christiane Vorster.  The girl appears to be ten–fifteen years old, which would fit either a kanēphoros or an arrhēphoros. The fact that such a statue of a girl was copied in Roman times suggests its importance either in terms of artistic value or of local fame, which might be explicable if it came from the renowned Athenian Acropolis; female statues in such prominent public places very often depict cult personnel. The slightly-larger-than-life size of the figure, compared with other statues of children, would further signify the importance of the girl.  Finally, the figure resembles the young girl carrying a stool in the Parthenon eastern frieze (East 31; fig. 2), who must be a member of the Acropolis cult personnel, although we do not know which. On stylistic grounds, the statue in Munich has been dated to the third century, which accords well with the date of the earliest arrhēphoroi bases. In view of the large number of statues of arrhēphoroi, it seems reasonable to identify her as an arrhēphoros rather than as a kanēphoros.  Hence, although distinct iconographic features are lacking, the statue type from Munich-San Antonio could well depict an early Hellenistic statue of one of these maidens, as Vorster has suggested in her dissertation. At least, the resemblance to the figure on the Parthenon frieze makes an identification as a cult official on the Acropolis highly probable. The statue demonstrates that undistinguished dress was still common for female cult personnel in the third century, and that the iconographic tradition created by the Parthenon was still alive in this period.
The images of cult personnel on the Athenian Acropolis during the second and first centuries BC can only be touched on here.  In this period, the total number of honors awarded to cult officials was growing.  As Riet van Bremen has observed for late Hellenistic Asia Minor, the poleis increasingly took over the role of private dedicators in the cultic sphere.  By the same token, it was the financial engagement of the persons honored which became increasingly important.  The polis was now anxious to secure adequate funding for the cult, and the prestige associated with cult offices consequently came to be contingent on such engagement. At the same time, Athenian families active in this context intensified the advertisement of their service on behalf of the polis by commissioning inscriptions and statues at various places in the city. 
The first honorific statue of a priestess set up by dēmos and boulē on the Acropolis belongs to this period. It was the portrait of a priestess of Pandrosus, from the genos of the Salaminioi, dating from the second century BC (IG II2 3481).  This portrait added to the visual presence of this family in the most prestigious sanctuary of the polis. Furthermore, the relation of Pandrosus to the Arrhephoria underlined the importance of this old and exclusively Attic ritual, which is also revealed by the large number of statues of arrhēphoroi on the Acropolis. The new awards of wreaths to the ergastinai signify the same interest in traditional and local cult offices in this period (IG II2 1034, 1036, 1060; SEG 28.90).  The fact that even arrhēphoroi received official honorific statues on the Acropolis in the first century AD illustrates the continuity of this trend (IG II2 3554, 3556). Since the second century BC, references to local polis traditions were also expressed in private votive statues, witness the statue of Philtera, priestess of Athena (IG II2 3474).  Her image expanded the statue group of Eteoboutadae on the Acropolis, but the inscription also mentioned the name of this genos for the first time. The text not only reminded the viewer of Philtera’s father, who had been stratēgos, but also of two of her most renowned (but long dead) ancestors: Lycurgus, the reformer of Classical Athens, and Diogenes, who liberated the polis in 229. Thus, family tradition and polis tradition became explicitly intertwined, transcending the immediate religious context in which they were publicized. In the high and late Hellenistic period, most of the cult officials honored or depicted on the Acropolis still came from the upper strata of Athenian society, though certainly not exclusively from the wealthiest eupatridai.  The increasing number of their images and of documents of honors awarded to them in this sanctuary made very blatant how broad the engagement of these Athenian families in cult affairs was: indeed, Acropolis cults appeared to be practiced and financed almost exclusively by these affluent Athenians, though they were no longer the monopoly of the eupatridai.
Primary visual evidence for the appearance of statues of cult personnel on the Athenian Acropolis is also lacking for the late Hellenistic period. Only images from other contexts can be used in order to obtain an idea of what such portraits may have looked like. The bald head of a man from the Agora, dated to the first century BC, may represent a priest—possibly of Isis—because the strophion was very often a priestly attribute.  Beardlessness and verisimilitude adopt fashionable elements of late Hellenistic civic portraiture. We do not know what kind of statue belonged to this head, but grave reliefs from Asia Minor with similar portraits indicate that now priests could wear a common civic himation.  This change (earlier, the long khitōn was their significant dress) further reduced the visual distance between male cult officials and other citizens, and reveals the incorporation of priestly offices into the civic interests of the polis. Unfortunately, we do not know if this was also true in Athens. Nonetheless, the most impressive document of priestly self-representation in this period comes again from Athens, although not from the Acropolis. It is the monumental votive relief which Lacratides, priest in Eleusis, dedicated around 100 BC.  Compared to the portraits we have discussed so far, the dedicator, wearing the strophion, appears in a very unusual manner: he has a long beard and long hair, which is in contrast to the contemporary portrait fashion, but which relates his image to portraits from Athens’ Classical past. The classicizing style of the relief similarly reminds the viewer of a relationship to the great Classical era of Athenian power. Lacratides is shown standing in the middle of a group of gods and goddesses and is the same size as these deities. This is neither the pious and humble documentation of eusebeia in the service of the polis, nor a representation of family traditions—the two principal concerns which stood at the beginning of the development of Attic images of cult personnel. Rather, Lacratides claims a powerful and exceptional individual role as being near to the gods and representing and revitalizing a glorious past. 
This brings us to the end of the period under investigation. Looking back, it appears that, in the Archaic period, the prestige of cult offices had not been used for visual self-representation and social competition in Athens. Being a priest seems to have been perceived merely as a technical duty. Thus, generic rather than individualized images of cult personnel could be neutral signs of civic eusebeia in this polis in the late fifth century. The radical democracy under Pericles and the following crisis of the Peloponnesian War were the starting points for an individualized competition in the holding of cult offices. At this time, the middle class, eligible only for nonhereditary priesthoods, started to document cult activities in the service of the polis through images of priestly figures on grave reliefs. From the fourth century, this competition for prestige was pursued especially by the eupatridai through their private dedication of portraits of members of their own family as cult personnel, which were set up on the Acropolis.  Obviously, the Athenian elite saw their social position challenged and were looking for new ways of maintaining their privileged role in the religious sphere. Social distinctions and gender roles were clearly expressed in these late Classical Athenian images of cult personnel by means of attributes and dress and by their different settings. What we know about the early Hellenistic votive statues of priests on the Acropolis reveals that, for instance, Lycurgus and his sons justified their expertise and prestige by alluding to cult traditions and family genealogy. In the third century, however, Athena’s sanctuary saw the demonstration—through portrait statues—of a less exclusive engagement in the field of cult activities by other wealthy Athenian families. Statues of minor cult officials appeared with increasing frequency. This could be read as a sign of a democratization of this particular cult space, or at least of a broader conception of who was responsible for this space and of who constituted the religious elite.  As in the Archaic period, so also during the third century, the female character of the cult of Athena was demonstrated by a large number of statues of young girls in the service of the goddess. Establishing a relationship to Athens’ great past became an important feature of dedications of statues in the high and late Hellenistic period. The polis secured the existence of its cults by awarding honors increasingly to those who were financially engaged and not only to those who traditionally inherited religious prestige: being a priest became very much a question of funding cult activities. Wealth had replaced birth as the definition of the elite. Consequently, in the late Hellenistic period, for Lacratides, expertise and family were no longer of primary importance. His prestige was based on wealth—evidenced by the large format of the marble relief—and on claims of individual power and status in reference to the past and the gods. The increasing importance of cult officials as civic donors in the Hellenistic period had made this change possible, as a result of which, new means for self-confident demonstrations of personal prestige became even more necessary. 
List of Figures
Images have been redacted due to copyright restrictions.
Figure 1. Statue of a seer (?). From Didyma, sixth century BC. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 1945. Photo by H. P. Laubscher, courtesy of the Institut für Klassische Archäologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich.
Figure 2. Archon basileus (?) and priestess of Athena with servants. Central part of the east frieze of the Parthenon, 447–432 BC. London, British Museum. Photo, Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY.
Figure 3. Grave relief of a priest. From Athens, late fifth century BC. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Pergamonmuseum K 28. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Pergamonmuseum.
Figure 4. Grave relief of the priestess Polystrate. From Athens, early fourth century BC. Athens, Kerameikos Museum I 430. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athens; neg. no. Ker 6164.
Figure 5. Document relief in honor of a woman. From the Athenian Acropolis, early fourth century BC. Athens, Acropolis Museum 2758 + 2427. Photo, Gösta Hellner, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athens; neg. no. Ath. 1985/3.
Figure 6. Document relief in honor of a priestess of Athena, second half of the fourth century BC. Berlin, Antikensammlung Sk 882. Drawing after Archäologische Zeitung 15 (1857), pl. 105.
Figure 7. Statue base of the priestess Lysimache. From the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 360 BC. Athens, Acropolis. Photo by Feiler, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athens; neg. no. Akr. 2300.
Figures 8a–b. Plaster cast: portrait of a priestess (?). Roman marble copy after a Greek original of the early fourth century BC, London, British Museum 2001. Cast, Munich, Museum für Abgüsse Klassischer Bildwerke 127. Photos, H. Glöckler, Museum für Abgüsse Klassischer Bildwerke, Munich.
Figure 9a-b. Plaster cast: portrait of a priest (?). From Athens, late third century BC, Athens, National Museum 351. Cast, Munich, Museum für Abgüsse Klassischer Bildwerke 354.Photos, H. Glöckler, courtesy of the Museum für Abgüsse Klassischer Bildwerke, Munich.
Figure 10. Statue of the priestess Aristonoe (on base, IG II2 3462). From Rhamnous, third century BC. Athens, National Museum 232. Institut für Klassische Archäologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich.
Figure 11. Statue of an Arrhēphoros (?). Roman copy after a Greek original of the third century BC. Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek 478. Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek, Munich.
Figure 12. Statue of an Arrhēphoros (?). Roman copy after a Greek original of the third century BC. San Antonio, TX, San Antonio Museum of Art 85.137.2. Courtesy of the San Antonio (TX) Museum of Art.
[ back ] * I would like to thank Beate Dignas and Kai Trampedach for inviting me to participate in the conference and for the atmosphere of inspiring communication they created together with all the other participants of the colloquium. I also owe thanks to Anja Klöckner for her—as always—precise information about votive reliefs, to Shelby Wells (San Antonio), Andreas Scholl (Berlin), Susanne Pfisterer-Haas, Inge Kader, and Heide Glöckler (Munich) for providing photographs, and to Kris Giannotta and Stephen Lake for correcting my English. The remaining faults are, of course, my own responsibility.
[ back ] 1. Feaver 1957:123; Garland 1984:75; Bremmer 1994:6–7; Bremmer 1996:10; cf. A. Chaniotis and U. Gotter in this volume.
[ back ] 2. Price 1999:67; cf. Sourvinou-Inwood 1988:259–260.
[ back ] 3. Burkert 1977:161. Witness, for instance, the advice of the priestess of Athena in favor of Themistocles’ plans in 480 BC: Herodotus 8.41. The distinction between power and prestige is crucial and needs further investigation.
[ back ] 4. Mantis 1990; cf. also Clinton 1974; Aleshire 1989; Aleshire 1991 and now ThesCRA 5:1–65. Priestesses have received particular attention recently: Kron 1996; van Bremen 1996; Dillon 2002; Lindner 2003. On grave reliefs with images of cult personnel: Scholl 1996:135–148; Kosmopoulou 2001:292–300.
[ back ] 5. Cf. Plato Statesman 290c–d; Aristotle Politics 6.1322b12–28; cf. Price 1999:67–73; A. Chaniotis in this volume.
[ back ] 6. Cf. von den Hoff 2004, where some of the ideas touched on here have also been worked out from a different perspective; Clinton 1974.
[ back ] 7. Such as the Asclepieum (with reference to Aleshire 1989; Aleshire 1991) or the sanctuary at Eleusis (with reference to Clinton 1974). A study of the grave reliefs (cf. above n4) from the point of view of the demonstration of their prestige by cult personnel, is still a desideratum; see the remarks below. I will not discuss the depiction of priests and other cult personnel on vases here, because they follow different rules, in that, for instance, they are not individualized; cf. van Straten 1996; Gebauer 2002, and the remarks in Bremmer 1994:28; Bremmer 1996:33; below n27.
[ back ] 8. See now Hurwit 1998:125–129; Karakasi 2001:115–144; Keesling 2003:3–161; Holtzmann 2003:55–62 (all with further bibliography); Stieber 2004. For suggested identifications, cf. for example, Ridgway 1977:108–112 (arrhēphoroi or kanēphoroi; but note that she altered her opinion, cf. below, following note); Shapiro 2001:3–5 (kanēphoroi); Shapiro 2001:92-94 (young Athenians); Karakasi 2001:134–139 (arrhēphoroi); Brinkmann 2003:71 (“Frauen aus reichen attischen Häusern”, which is also suggested by Stieber 2004); further bibliography: Kron 1996:145n36; Keesling 2003:100–102. That some korai have been found near the alleged house of the arrhēphoroi (Pausanias 1.27.3) is no argument for an identification. For other find-spots, cf. Karakasi 2001:130 fig. 19. Insofar as Archaic images do not attempt to depict age accurately, the argument that the korai look too old for girls like arrhēphoroi (Langlotz 1939:7–8; Martini 1990:80) is not valid.
[ back ] 9. Dedication to Poseidon: Keesling 2003:112. The so-called Peplos Kore from Athens, Acropolis 679 (Ridgway 1990:602–611; Keesling 2003:135–139; Brinkmann 2003 cat. no. 100) wears a garment different from those of the other statues, and seems to be a goddess. Ridgway 1982:126–127; Ridgway 1990:601–602; and Harrison 1988:53–54, identify the korai as nymphs or similar semidivine figures. Keesling 2003:97–161 now identifies the korai as statues of Athena, but this remains debatable because almost all (!) of them lack Athena’s principal attributes of the Archaic period: weapons and aegis (for exceptions: Keesling 2003:129–140). These omissions must have been intended to distinguish the korai from statues of Athena.
[ back ] 10. Lechat 1903:270; Graindor 1938:202–211; Payne and Young 1936:9–10n3 (reference to goddess rather than to dedicator); Langlotz 1939:7–8; Richter 1968:4; Schneider 1975:2–3; Floren and Fuchs 1987:262; Pandora 1996:129–131 no. 1; Martini 1990:80–82; Ross Holloway 1992:268; Kron 1996:145; Dillon 2001:12; Holtzmann 2003:56; cf. Keesling 2003:107–121. Keesling 2003 and Stieber 2004 have recently challenged this point of view.
[ back ] 11. Schneider 1975:2–3; Osborne 1994:90–91.
[ back ] 12. For named statues of dedicators, see only the image of Rhombus (Fuchs and Floren 1987:276 pl. 22.1; Holtzmann 2003:63 fig. 41); further evidence in: Krumeich 1997:23–24; Holtzmann 2003:50–55, 63–66; Keesling 2003:117, 180–185. For the scribes: Krumeich 1997:22–23 figs. 1–4; Trianti 1998:1–33; Shapiro 2001a:94-96 (“heilige Männer”); Keesling 2003:182–185; Brinkmann 2003 cat. no. 22, 66; Holtzmann 2003:65–66 fig. 43.
[ back ] 13. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 1945: Höckmann 1996:93–102 pl. 18–19.1; Kopanias 2001. On the sitting posture: Nagy 1998. For the role of seers in the Archaic period, see K. Trampedach in this volume.
[ back ] 14. Cercyra, Archaeological Museum: Lechat 1891:32 fig. 4, 79 fig. 13; Mantis 1990:30–31 pl. 5.
[ back ] 15. Now lost, ex art market: Mantis 1990:31–32 pl. 6a; Karakasi 2001:35n9 cat. no. M10, 38–39 pl. 45. For the unusual attribute, cf. Özgan 1978:133–135. See also Archaic statues of priests from Cyprus: Senff 1993:54, 70–71 pl. 37, 61d–e; Karageorgis 2000:109–110 no. 172.
[ back ] 16. Vases: Gebauer 2002. Among extant Attic grave monuments of the Archaic period, only the painted stele of Lyseas can be related iconographically to a cult context, on the basis of the attributes depicted; however, these could also be signs of his eusebeia rather than pointing to a position as priest of Dionysus: Mantis 1990:92–93 pl. 42b. For the dominance of the elite in Athenian state religion: Ober 1989:57, cf. also 290n73.
[ back ] 17. Palagia 1980:41; Mantis 1990:52–56; 74–75; Phidias’ statue could also have been a mythical figure. Cf. the kleidoukhos of Euphranor (Pliny Natural History 34.78; Palagia 1980:40–41) and late Classical or early Hellenistic kleidoukhoi from Cyprus (Connelly 1988:21–22, 27 fig. 32–33). We do not know the date of the statues of priestesses in front of the temple of Hera in Argos: Pausanias 2.17.3.
[ back ] 18. Athens, National Museum 226: Mantis 1990:51–52 pl. 18; Kron 1996:142–143 fig. 1; Kaltsas 2002:132 no. 254. The statue of a priestess made by Phradmon from Argos is attested by an inscription from Ostia: Zevi 1969–1970:110–114.
[ back ] 19. Krumeich 1997:63–150; Keesling 2003:170–180, 191–198. For the difference between private votive statues and official honorific statues, which, in Athens, were not set up between 477/6 and 394/3: Demosthenes 20.70; Himmelmann 2001:51–53n79.
[ back ] 20. Krumeich 1997:110–111, 244 cat. no. A58; Keesling 2003:258n81.
[ back ] 21. For seers in Athens: Garland 1984:81–82; 1996:93–94; cf. Trampedach and Flower in this volume. Cf. a statue of a splankhnoptēs: Pliny Natural History 34.81: Robertson 1999.
[ back ] 22. Krumeich 1997:92; 231–232 cat. no. A20.
[ back ] 23. For the frieze as a whole: Berger and Gisler-Huwiler 1996; Neils 2001.
[ back ] 24. Berger and Gisler-Huwiler 1996:147–169 pls. 128–130, 138–140; Hurwit 1998:184–186; Neils 2001:154–158 fig. 118; Dillon 2001:42–50; Holtzmann 2003:131–133; Lindner 2003:58–59.
[ back ] 25. Berger and Gisler-Huwiler 1996:151, 152, 167, 168, 169; Neils 2001:158; cf. Beschi 1984:180–183; Harrison 1989:51–53.
[ back ] 26. Roccos 1995:641–668, esp. 657–658; Neils 2001:157; contra: Mansfield 1985:354–355n130. Other identifications of cult personnel: Beschi 1984:193; Harrison 1989:53; Berger and Gisler-Huwiler 1996:167.
[ back ] 27. Berger and Gisler-Huwiler 1996:157–161 pl. 134; Neils 2001:166–171 figs.127, 197–200; Neils and Oakley 2003:159 fig. 24; for the dress, cf. Miller 1989:319–323; on vases, the long priestly khitōn is rarely depicted: Mantis 1990 pls. 35b, 43; van Straten 1995 figs. 135, 145–146.; cf. Gebauer 2002:471–478.
[ back ] 28. Steinhart 1997.
[ back ] 29. Berger and Gilser-Huwiler 1996:159, 172–174 (table with suggested identifications).
[ back ] 30. Schäfer 1987; they really carry stools, pace Wesenberg 1995.
[ back ] 31. Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood 1988a:58–59; von Heintze 1993; Berger and Gisler-Huwiler 1996:158–159; Neils 2001:168; Holtzmann 2003:134. For the age of arrhēphoroi, see below. For the shoulder cord worn by East 31: Harrison 1977; Roccos 2000:245–247 (but with crossbands).
[ back ] 32. Schäfer 1987:211.
[ back ] 33. See above n4; cf. Bergemann 1997:45; ThesCRA 5:30 nos. 136–138 pls. 4–5; and now Ajootian 2007.
[ back ] 34. Lindner 2003:55, 61–63. Temple keys and sacrificial knife: Mantis 1990; Scholl 1996:136–137, 143; Kosmopoulou 2001:294. For the dress: Kosmopoulou 2001:296–297 (women); above n27 (men). However, knives are also known as attributes of female cult personnel in graves: Kron 1992:650.
[ back ] 35. Scholl 1996:138–139, 147–148; cf. the grave monuments of the Lycurgus family, below n52.
[ back ] 36. Brauron: SEG 23, 161; Bergemann 1997:202 Q3 pl. 11. Although members of this family are explicitly named as mantis on the large inscription stelae of this precinct, the reliefs do not refer to this position. Myrrhine, Athens, National Museum 4485: Turner 1983:82–96; Rahn 1986; Clairmont 1993:163–165 no. 5.150; Kaltsas 2002:148–150 no. 289; Holtzmann 2003:224 fig. 196; cf. IG I3 35 and IG I3 1330, Hansen 1983:54 no. 93; Parker 1996:125–127; Price 1999:175–176 nos. 4–5; ThesCRA 5:10 no. 31. On eusebeia (cf. above) and honoring the gods as important qualities mentioned in grave epigrams: IG II2 5501 = Hansen 1989:88–89 no. 600; IG II2 6551 = Hansen 1989:90–91 no. 603; IG II2 7227 = Hansen 1989:49 no. 543; IG II2 8593 = Peek 1960 no. 106; Blümel 1994:158–159; further evidence: Peek 1960:371 s.v. Frömmigkeit.
[ back ] 37. Van Straten 1995; Edelmann 1999. The exception which proves the rule is the priest wearing a long khitōn on a votive relief in Eretria, Museum 631: Edelmann 1999:190no. B32 (I owe this reference to A. Klöckner); cf. Mantis 1990:36 Taf. 9b (votive relief in Malibu, Getty Museum 73.AA.124); Geominy 1989:255 (votive relief in St. Petersburg, Hermitage PAN 160).
[ back ] 38. Awards of wreaths: Blech 1982:153–161. For honorific statues after 394/3, see above n19. The inscription for the priest Aristokrates (IG II2 3454; Meritt 1933:155–156 no. 4; Davies 1971:60 no. 1926) does not belong to this period, nor is it a statue base: Ma and Tracy 2004:121–126.
[ back ] 39. Athens, Acropolis Museum 2758 + 2427: Meyer 1989:287 cat. A76 pl. 27,1; Mantis 1990:41–42, 88; Lawton 1995:125 no. 91 pl. 48. Priestesses on document reliefs: Lawton 1995:61.
[ back ] 40. Athens, National Museum 3482: Meyer 1989:289–299 cat. A86; Lawton 1995:143–144 no. 145 pl. 77. Cf. also the honors for a priest in an Attic dēmos: SEG 42, 112; ThesCRA 5:28 no. 121.
[ back ] 41. Berlin, Antikensammlung Sk 882: Meyer 1989:289 cat. A85; Mantis 1990:41–43 pl. 12; Lawton 1995:151–152 no. 164 pl. 86; Scholl 2002:193 no. 90; ThesCRA 5:29 no. 124 pl. 3.
[ back ] 42. It is uncertain whether it perhaps depicts Phanostrate, priestess of Athena, known to have been in office in 341/0: Mantis 1990:41–43; Aleshire 1994:336 no. 2 note b.
[ back ] 43. It is doubtful whether the document relief in Athens, National Museum 1396 (Lawton 1995:147–148 no. 153 pl. 81; Kaltsas 2002:236 no. 496) portrays a priest of Amphiaraus, as the honored Articlides is not wearing priestly dress.
[ back ] 44. Other official honorific statues were also rare on the Classical Acropolis: IG II2 3822, 4321 (cf. Hansen 1989:179 no. 761); the provenance of IG II2 4330 is uncertain; IG II2 3827 is Roman: Ma and Tracy 2004:121–126. On the other hand, official honorific statues did exist in sanctuaries outside Attica: Eule 2002:213–214.
[ back ] 45. Jahn and Michaelis 1931:pl. 28 no. 9; Reisch 1919:303–306 fig. 192; Lewis 1955:1–12 fig. 2; Hansen 1989:175–176 no. 757; Mantis 1990:70–71 pl. 29; Georgoudi 1993:157–196; Kron 1996:143–144 fig. 2 (with bibliography); Löhr 2000:198; Bielman 2002:22–25; Holtzmann 2003:221; ThesCRA 5:10–11 no. 32. It remains uncertain whether this was the same Lysimache, mother of Telemachus, founder of the Asclepieum, who dedicated a silver phialē on the Acropolis in 398/7: Harris 1995:171 cat. V 317, 246 no. 31; Hurwit 1998:251; Bielman 2002:22; Holtzmann 2003:221; cf. Davies 1971:170–171.
[ back ] 46. Cf. Pfisterer-Haas 1989:101–105; Kron 1996:144; Schulze 1998:98–99. Nonetheless, the fact that Pliny mentions the statue speaks in favor of the existence of Roman copies.
[ back ] 47. London, British Museum 2001: Reisch 1919:312–316 fig. 195; Pfisterer-Haas 1989: 102–103 Abb. 164–165; Mantis 1990:70–74 pl. 30γ–31; Todisco 1993:61–62 pl. 89; Hurwit 1998:251 Abb. 205; Holtzmann 2003:221 fig. 195. The strophion relates the head to the portrait of the priestess Aristonoë (below n68); originally, earrings were attached on both sides, which also distinguishes the woman from conventional mythological figures; but cf. the identification as mythological heroine: Pfisterer-Haas 1989:104–105.
[ back ] 48. Compare the dedication of a small temple by the priestess Menecrateia in the sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos around 350–320: IG II2 4753; Hansen 1989:183–184 no. 770; Kron 1996:154–155 Abb. 8.
[ back ] 49. For the definition of eupatridai: Ober 1989:55–59. Cf. the votive statue of the priestess Chaerippe made by Praxiteles and set up by her brothers, possibly in the city Eleusinion: Ajootian 2007.
[ back ] 50. Later, in the Hellenistic period, this is done again by depicting keys on columellae: Mantis 1990 pl. 14–15.
[ back ] 51. See von den Hoff 2003.
[ back ] 52. For the genos: Davies 1971:351–352; Merker 1986:41–50; Matthaiou 1987:31–41; Aleshire 1994:28; Parker 1996:290–293; Mikalson 1998:22. For the priesthood of Poseidon: Garland 1984:106; Aleshire 1994:330–332; Lycurgus very probably held the priesthood until his death in 325/4. The grave lekuthos of Lycophron has been found: Matthaiou 1987:35–37 pl. 10; SEG 37.160. It must have been set up after the law of Demetrius prohibiting large grave monuments.
[ back ] 53. Marcade 1948:697–698; Hölscher 1977:378–379; Merker 1986:47, 50; Hintzen-Bohlen 1990:152–153; Löhr 2000:147 no. 167; cf. von den Hoff 2003:179–180 for the following argument.
[ back ] 54. Lippold 1916:2141.
[ back ] 55. Marcade 1948:697–698; Hintzen-Bohlen 1990:153; cf. Merker 1986; Matthaiou 1987.
[ back ] 56. Hintzen-Bohlen 1990:153. Ideas about the appearance of the painting remain speculative: Robert 1895:86; Löhr 2000:147, 156, 163–164, 177.
[ back ] 57. It remains unclear if these images were wall paintings (Dörpfeld 1911:48, 95; Lippold 1916:2141). Pausanias’ plural proves that the painting by Ismenias, at the most, was one of them, if not a single dedication, which seems more probable: Robert 1895:87; Hölscher 1977:378; Hintzen-Bohlen 1990:152–153n178; Löhr 2000:163; contra: Jeppensen 1979:385. For portrait paintings in temples in the fifth century: Pausanias 1.1.2; Woodhead 1997:390–391 no. 277.
[ back ] 58. Timarchus and Cephisodotus: Matthaiou 1994:175–183; Ajootian 1996:94–97; Andreae 2001; Schultz 2003. For the lifetime of Lycurgus and his sons: above n52. Lippold 1921:236; Bieber 1923–1924:270; Morricone 1991:196–197, prefer a date for the group late in Habron’s lifetime (310/04), while Marcade 1948:698 suggests a date in the early third century, but only because of the artists’ floruit, which Löhr 2000:160, thinks is possible. Against a dedication made by Habron: Hölscher 1977:378n23. Indeed, the possibility cannot be excluded that the statues were dedicated by Lycurgus himself: Hintzen-Bohlen 1990:153.
[ back ] 59. Löhr 2000.
[ back ] 60. Wooden statues: Oelmann 1957:15n11; Romano 1980:357–364; Donohue 1988:147; Arafat 1996:54–57; Pritchett 1999:168–182. Archaic wooden votives: Kyrieleis 1980. Cf. the wooden statue of Sarapis from the Roman Imperial period: LIMC 7 (1994) 669 s. v. Sarapis no. 8b.
[ back ] 61. Lewis 1955:8; Davies 1971:171–172 no. 4549 (stemma and dedicator); Mantis 1990:74; Aleshire 1994:336–337 note d; von den Hoff 2003:180n62–63.
[ back ] 62. Garland 1984:91–94.
[ back ] 63. Ferguson 1938:20–21; Mikalson 1998:165n87; von den Hoff 2003:180. Chremonides himself appears as dedicator on the Acropolis: Immerwahr 1942:344–347 no. 3.
[ back ] 64. This was not previously completely unknown (Keesling 2003:192), but as far as is known, it is new for cult personnel.
[ back ] 65. Cf: Geagan 1996:155: “transformation of the cult away from personal piety to status display.”
[ back ] 66. Athens, National Museum 351: Arndt und Bruckmann 1891–1942 no. 343–344 (era of the Diadochi); Buschor 1979:87 no. 218 Abb. 60 (first century BC); Harrison 1953:14 (first century BC); Stewart 1979:82–84 no. 1 Abb. 26 a (first century BC); Fittschen 1988:26n155 pl. 133 (late third century BC, myrtle wreath); Stewart 1990:fig. 781 (200 BC); Andreae 2001:115–116 fig. 75; pl. 86 (190 BC, archon); Kaltsas 2002:297 no. 621 (first century BC).
[ back ] 67. Hierophants: Clinton 1974:23n96, 32–33, 46; cf. Clinton 1974:104–106 figs. 11–14; Goette 1989. Honorific statues for hierophants set up by the Eleusinian priesthood: Clinton 1974:23–24 (IG II2 2944); for other honors awarded to hierophants: Clinton 1974:22–27. Myrtle wreaths for other nonpriestly personnel: Woodhead 1997:329 no. 228.
[ back ] 68. Athens National Museum 232: IG II2 3462; Mantis 1990:109–110 pl. 47β; Eule 2001:141–143, 185 cat. 57 fig. 63; Petrakos 1999:108 no. 133; Himmelmann 2001:8 fig. 2 (with further bibliography; for a later dating of the inscription: Tracy 1990:165); Kaltsas 2002:274 no. 574; ThesCRA 5:29 no. 126 pl. 3. Cf. the early Hellenistic statuette of a herd initiate (?), Eleusis, Museum 111: Mylonas 1961:203 fig. 80; Clinton 1974:104–105 C. It is unclear if the early Hellenistic statue in Athens, National Museum 255 (Kaltsas 2002:256 no. 535), depicted an Eleusianian dadoukhos (Geominy 1989:253–264) or the divine Iacchus (Clinton 1992:70, 137 no. 3 fig. 64).
[ back ] 69. Compare the statue of the priestess of Demeter, Niceso, from Priene (Berlin, Antikensammlung Sk 1928), who once, as a sign of her function, held a hydria(?) on her head: Mantis 1990:98–99 pl. 44β; Kron 1996:146–148 fig. 4; Eule 2001:43–44, 179–180 cat. 43 fig. 71; ThesCRA 5:30 no. 131 pl. 3.
[ back ] 70. Reisch 1919; Lewis 1955:8 (also for the date); Stewart 1979:115, 118 (epigram); Aleshire 1994:337 note d; Hurwit 1998:356n23; Bielman 2002:22–23; contra Mantis 1990:75–76; Holtzmann 2003:221. For an impression of the appearance of the image, cf. the bronze statuette in Reisch 1919 pl. 6. Todisco 1997:121–123 takes the object mentioned here for a relief, and, indeed, the preserved base is much longer than it is deep: Reisch 1919:302. For the earlier priestess Lysimache, see above.
[ back ] 71. Jordan 1979:28–36; Turner 1983:121–122; Mansfield 1985:260–357; Brulé 1987:79–98; Lefkowitz 1996:78–91; Berger and Gisler-Huwiler 1996:193–194; Donnay 1997; Dillon 2001:57–60; Holtzmann 2003:222, Aleshire, and Lambert 2003:77; Neils, and Oakley 2003:149–151.
[ back ] 72. List of testimonia: Donnay 1997:204–205. For the dates: Aleshire 1994:336 ad no. 6–7note f; cf. Donnay 1997:181, 204–205; Mikalson 1998:199, 206, 256 (who postulates a date after 229 for the first statues); Geagan 1994:167–170; Geagan 1996:153–155; von den Hoff 2003:178–179; for the dates of IG II2 3470–3472: Tracy 2003:141. Arrhēphoroi are not attested with certainty in the cult of Asclepius: Aleshire 1989:90–91; Mikalson 1998:266 ad IG II2 974 = SEG 18, 26.18–19.
[ back ] 73. Some fragmentary inscriptions belong to the same series because of their characteristic dedication formula: IG II2 3465, 3482, 3486; Donnay 1997:180n11.
[ back ] 74. Turner 1983:52–119, 120–128. For the concept of eugeneia: Ober 1989:248–259.
[ back ] 75. Geagan 1994:170 (“wealthiest”); Donnay 1997:197 (“aristocracy”); Wilson 2000:42–43, with critique in Ober 2000; cf. Feaver 1957:146; Burkert 1976:4; Turner 1983:121–122; Mansfield 1985:270–271. Cf. priests as eugenetoi: Demosthenes 57.46, 48.
[ back ] 76. Cf. Geagan 1994:170.
[ back ] 77. Roccos 1995:641–666; Brulé 1996:47–50; Lefkowitz 1996:78–91; Berger and Gisler-Huwiler 1996:194–195; Dillon 2001:37–42; Neils, and Oakley 2003:17–19, 158.
[ back ] 78. Aleshire 1991:90–92.
[ back ] 79. Cf. Zopyros: IG II2 896, and Wilson 2000:25–26; Ober 2000
[ back ] 80. Outside Athens, statues of kanēphoroi had existed since the later sixth century, see above nn14, 17. Pliny Natural History 34.69 (Praxiteles) does not refer to a kanēphoros with certainty: Corso 1988:75; 201n365. For statues of kanēphoroi in Athens: Geagan 1994:167–170.
[ back ] 81. Compare Burnett, and Edmonson 1961, and: IG II2 3207, 4330.
[ back ] 82. Cf. IG II2 3489, 3498; Geagan 1983:155–158 nos. 1–2.
[ back ] 83. Daughters serving as kanēphoroi must have enhanced their fathers’ prestige: see IG II2 668.31–33, 896.9–10, i 14–15, 21–28, where this is mentioned explicitly; cf. Mikalson 1998:198–199.
[ back ] 84. Cf. what Ober 1989:259–261, 289–292 has called “democratization” and “subversion” of elite ideals, attested by the desire of many “to portray themselves in the role of aristocrats and their use of terminology that specifically recalls the aristocratic code of behavior” (289). In Athens, this trend may have begun earlier, during the fourth century, in the political arena rather than in the religious context.
[ back ] 85. Munich, Glyptothek 478 (preserved height without plinth: 1.23 m): Hiller 1965:43–46 pl. 20–24; Vorster 1983:78–79, 127–133, 348 no. 51; von den Hoff 2003:179 fig. 4. San Antonio, Museum of Art 85.137.2 (preserved height: 0.66 m): unpublished; Fine Antiquities, Sotheby’s New York, Auction 9.12.1985, lot 139; I owe this reference to C. Vorster. The existence of two replicas makes it probable that the Munich statue is a very good Roman copy and not a Hellenistic original, cf. Furtwängler 1907:7.
[ back ] 86. Compare the size of statues of children from Brauron, which do not exceed 1.20 m: Vorster 1983 cat.; cf. Sourvinou-Inwood 1988a, for defining the age of girls in statues.
[ back ] 87. Identification as a kanēphoros can probably be excluded because of the dress: Roccos 1995. A suggested depiction of an arrhēphoros which occurs on a fourth-century votive relief (Acropolis Museum 2554: Palagia 1990:351–352 fig. 16; Jenkins 1994:28 fig. 15; I owe these references to Olga Palagia), is not wearing a himation, but a peplos, though its identification is unclear, cf. von den Hoff 2003:179n51.
[ back ] 88. Cf. van Bremen 1996; Eule 2001:125–127 (Asia Minor).
[ back ] 89. See only: IG II2 689–690, 776, 783 (for the date, see now Tracy 2003:155), 788, 863, SEG 33.115; Woodhead 1997:390–391 no. 277; Holtzmann 2003:221; Ma and Tracy 2004, 121–126 (from the Agora).
[ back ] 90. Van Bremen 1996:174–180.
[ back ] 91. Cf. IG II2 776.17; IG II2 788. The frequent honors granted to the priests of Asclepius in the second century BC were possibly due to the fact that this office was a leitourgia: Aleshire 1991:72–75; SEG 18.21–22, 26–29; Mikalson 1998:203–204, 261–262; cf. IG II2 968; Mikalson 1998:258. The growing importance of selling priesthoods could also be mentioned in this context: Turner 1983:141–173; Wörrle 1990:43–49. For the decline in the difference between religious and civic leitourgiai: van Bremen 1996:25–34.
[ back ] 92. Chrysis, priestess of Athena: Acropolis: IG II2 3484; IG II2 3485; Delphi: IG II2 1136.7, 12, 27–32; her father was priest of Asclepius (IG II2 950 = SEG 18.22), her grandfather priest in Eleusis (IG II2 3857); cf. Aleshire 1989:175–176 table 9 (stemma); Mikalson 1998:256. Panariste: arrhēphoros and ergastinē: IG II2 3488; IG II2 1034 col. II.9; for other members of her family: Clinton 1974:98–101 with no. 1, 13; Mikalson 1998:260. Further examples: Geagan 1983:155–161 nos. 1–2; Mansfield 1985:284–286, 288–289; Geominy 1989:257–258; Mikalson 1998:239; 266; 258; Aleshire 1991:89–92; compare also the multiple offices of ergastinai: Tracy 1990:219; Aleshire and Lambert 2003:85–86.
[ back ] 93. Raubitschek 1945:434–435.
[ back ] 94. Tracy 1990:217–219. For the ergastinai: Mansfield 1985:277–281; Brulé 1987:100–105; Berger, and Gisler-Huwiler 1996:194; Mikalson 1998:256–258; Holtzmann 2003:222; Aleshire, and Lambert 2003.
[ back ] 95. Aleshire 1994:336 no. 11; Mikalson 1998:171–172, 206, 256. For the artists: Despinis 1995:333–338; Linnemann 2001.
[ back ] 96. Cf. for the ergastinai: Aleshire, and Lambert 2003:86.
[ back ] 97. Athens, Agora Museum S 333: Harrison 1953:12–14 no. 3, 84–85 pl. 3; Stewart 1979:80–81 fig. 24; Smith 1991:257 fig. 326; Pakkanen 1996:55n186. Cf. another late Hellenistic portrait with a wreath, but in Corinth, Archaeological Museum 1445 a: Harrison 1953:13 pl. 43 c (possibly a priest). A survey of the strophion as priestly attribute is a desideratum. The presence of a strophion, however, does not necessarily define a priest: cf. Rumscheid 2000:2–4 and above n47 and n68 for strophia as attributes of priestesses. A bald head as a sign of a relation to the cult of Isis: Fittschen 1977:67–69 no. 22; Isis cult in Athens: Pakkanen 1996:47–63; Mikalson 1998:276–277.
[ back ] 98. Leiden, Rijksmuseum Pb. 27: Pfuhl, and Möbius 1977:93 no. 170 pl. 37; Känel 1989:56–57; Schmidt 1991:83–84, 138 (priest?). Images of priests are otherwise unknown on Hellenistic grave reliefs, but images of priestesses are preserved from Smyrna: Pfuhl, and Möbius 1977:136–138; Känel 1989:57; Mantis 1990:99–101; see also the second-century grave columellae with temple keys from Athens: Mantis 1990:44–45.
[ back ] 99. Eleusis Museum 5079: Heberdey 1899:111–116; Mylonas 1961:197–199 fig. 71; Stewart 1979:53–55, 78 pl. 23c (head of Lacratides); Palagia 1987:82–83 fig. 1; Clinton 1992:51–53, 135 no. 3 figs. 5–7; Papangeli 2002:243 figs. 246, 253 (head of Lacratides). For the dedicator: Clinton 1974:97 no. 1.
[ back ] 100. A painting of Alcibiades in Nemea’s arms on the Acropolis was taken as a sign of hubris in the late fifth century: Plutarch Alcibiades 16.5.
[ back ] 101. Cf. van Bremen 1996:178; Geagan 1996:155.
[ back ] 102. Cf. Ober 1989:259–61, 289–292.
[ back ] 103. Unfortunately, this phenomenon cannot be examined in its relation to other changes in late Hellenistic culture here; cf. various contributions in Wörrle and Zanker 1995.