Greek Public Monuments of the Persian Wars

6. Epigram for the Athenians who died at Marathon, possibly inscribed on stele set up in the Stoa Poikile.

The Suidas epigram was quoted by the orator Lycurgus in the fourth century. Later its text was again cited, with variants in the second line, by Aristides, a later scholiast on Aristides, and Suidas.

Lycurgus clearly states that it is a funerary epigram, from the epigram itself it is clear that the poem is for the battle of Marathon. Where the tomb was is not stated but one would suppose that, if genuine, it stood over the Soros (no. 5) on the plain of Marathon.

In style and content the poem is quite suitable for an early fifth century date (Hauvette 1894; Friedländer 1938-1939), but there are objections to taking it as an epigram over the Soros. In its short, pointed phrases it makes no reference to the grave or the dead who lie in it, as genuine epitaphs almost always do (Jacoby 1945:160).

The opening phrase hEllenon promachountes accords well with the Athenian outlook after the threat of Xerxes had been repulsed. Similarly this Panhellenic idea – that the Athenians at Marathon fought for all of Greece – also occurs in the first of the Marathon epigrams (no. 13, l. 4}; and the great bronze statue of Athena (no. 18), made by Phidias from the spoils at Marathon, was later called Athena Promachos.

Suidas quotes the epigram in his article on the Stoa Poikile and seems to imply that the epigram was inscribed on a stele set up in that building near the famous painting of the battle of Marathon. If that were the case, it would indeed relieve us of the difficulty of construing the epigram as an epitaph, although Lycurgus does state specifically that the epigram is funerary (epiymbia martyria).

Although the date is uncertain the Stoa Poikile was probably built about 460 (Thompson 1950:328; Wycherley 1957:45, n.2). Elements of its architecture, especially the mouldings, associate it with the Hephaesteum (L. S. Meritt, quoted by Morgan 1963:105, n. 15) and suit best a tentative dating around 460, which accords nicely with the Panhellenic sentiment of hEllenon promachountes.

7. Grave of Miltiades on the plain of Marathon.

Pausanias is the only authority to discuss the actual grave of Miltiades. He says that it was marked by a private menorial, presumably a gravestone with an inscription, and as he mentions it just after describing the Soros and the grave of the Plataeans and slaves, he clearly indicates that it, too, was on the plain of Marathon.

The burial itself was a private one, as Pausanias says, but the grave of Miltiades must have become a famous sight for travelers in Athens, as the notice in Pausanias attests. If, then, the Greeks allowed Miltiades to be buried on the plain of Marathon, the site of his victory, that would be an exceptional honor for a single individual and would in effect constitute public recognition of his grave.

The testimony of Pausanias has not been challenged by modern scholars and Leake (1829:172-173) has suggested for the greave of Miltiades a ruin some 500 yards north of the Soros, now called Pyrgos, consisting of the foundation of a square monument of marble blocks.

8. Thank offering dedicated at Delphi, resting upon an inscribed base abutting against the terrace of the Athenian Treasury.

Syll. ³ 23: Pausanias 10.11.5.

From the spoils of Marathon the Athenians dedicated a thank offering at Delphi. What the offering was it not known; it my have been arms and armor taken from the foe or even a group of statues purchased from the sale of booty. Whatever it was the offering was displayed upon a long limestone base set against the terrace of the Athenian Treasury.

French excavators discovered the base, in eight fragments, in 1893 and were able to piece it together three years later by reconstructing the mutilated dedicatory inscription which it bore (Homolle 1893:612 and 1896:608-617). When set in place originally the base had abutted against the third step of the south side of the great polygonal terrace upon which the Treasury itself was built.

The French argue that it is impossible to date the building on grounds of architectural style. The dates proposed by Pomtow for the Treasury and the subsequent dedication, 506 and 490, are barely fifteen years apart and they argue that, it is impossible to detect subtle differences in style.

There are reasons other than architectural, however, for preferring a late sixth century date for the building. Dinsmoor recently pointed out (1946:86-121) the existence, at the top of the inside walls of the building, of a band of ornamentation in the form of a palmette and lotus pattern. Such ornmentation is found in no other building but does bear striking resemblance to the ornaments used by vase painters in the late sixth century and occasionally in the early fifth. Cataloguing the examples of palmette ornament on bf. vases he finds more than 150 examples dated by Beazley of which the overwhelming majority fall in the decade 510-500 B. C. and most of the other examples before this period. By the first decade of the fifth century this type of ornamentation had lost its popularity, although there are seome examples in the 490’s. Dinsmoor believes that the use of this ornament on the Treasury walls suggests a date in the last decade of the sixth century, when the ornament was at the height of its popularity. He argues that its use in a monumental building after it had gone out of style in vase painting would be an intolerable anachronism.

Thus it appears that the evidence of archaeology, backed by modern methods of research, points strongly to a sixth century date for the Treasury. As it is likely that the Athenians built such a splendid building at Delphi to commemorate an important event, the Treasury may have been a monument to the great victory over the Boeotians and Chalkidians in 506 B. C., by which the young democracy was preserved (Hdt. 5.77). This is the view of Pomtow and Dinsmoor.

The inscription on the limestone bae is written in the archaic Attic alphabet, although the preserved text is not the original. The original text was erased, possibly for refurbishing the letters (cf. no. 68), and then slightly modified by the present text which replaced it (A. D. Keramopoullos, Eph. Arch. [1911] 162-168). The present text is probably of the third century B. C.cut in the archaic alphabet. Both dotted theta and three-stroke sigma are used. The letter forms agree with a date for the inscription shortly after Marathon. Hence the limestone base, if it is not an integral part of the Treasury terrace, is securely dated.

It is evident from the dedicatory inscription on the limestone base that a thank offering for Marathon was made by the Athenians. From an examination of the cuttings on the top of the base it is also evident that something was set upon it, obviously the dedicatory offerings. It cannot also refer to the Treasury itself because, if the archaeological arguments summarized above are correct, the Treasury had been completely built before the limestone base was set against the terrace, probably by as much as fifteen years.

9. Athenian tetradrachm with wreathed helmet and crescent moon.

The wreathed helmet marks a major change in the form in which Athena is depicted. It may be interpreted as a symbol for victory, like the wreathed cantharos of the Naxian stater (no. 1; cf. Kraay 1956:56-58), but the victory to which it refers is not immediately apparent.

Seltman (1924a: 91-92) believes that the crescent moon is a reference to Marathon. Herodotus (6.105-106) tells the story that the Spartans, when requested to come to the aid of the Athenians at Marathon, replied that they could not leave until the moon was full because they were celebrating a festival. After the full moon they came to Marathon and saw the Persians left dead on the field.

Kraay has recently re-examined the evidence for dating the initial appearance of the tetradrachm issue with wreath and crescent and concludes that little significance may be attached to the crescent moon because it is small and unobtrusive and therefore apparently not designed to attract attention. He believes that the wreathed tetradrachm appeared shortly after Attic silver became available from the mines at Laurium (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 22.7) towards the end of the decade of the 480’s. Kraay then proceeds to date the wreathed issue in ca. 479, presumably in commemoration of the battle of Salamis.

Of the two battles Marathon still appears the more plausible. Despite Kraay’s objection to the lunar symbolism, the story in Herodotus indicates a tradition in which the Marathon moon was recalled by later generations; no such tradition is associated with the battle of Salamis. Besides, Salamis was a Panhellenic victory and Marathon a purely Athenian one.

10. Athenian decadrachm.

Closely associated with the wreathed tetradrachm (no. 9) are the decadrachms and didrachms. These coins bore the same design as the tetradrachm, including the olive leaves on Athena’s helmet, but they do not have the crescent moon. They were both minted for a few years only at about the time of the appearance of the wreathed tetradrachm (Seltman 1924) and then passed out of circulation. The two denominations were struck only during the middle years of the decade of the 480’s. It is natural to suppose that they were commemorative issues, like the tetradrachm, for the battle of Marathon.

Neither Seltman nor Kraay think these coins referred to Marathon, however. Seltman suggested these denominations were necessary for the Athenian state to pay the ten drachmae dole it decreed in 483 B. C. (Hdt. 7.44; Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 22.7; Plut., Them. 4). Kraay thinks that they were not minted until after Salamis and commemorated that battle or one of the early battles of the Cimonian period. Nevertheless Marathon still remains the most likely candidate, especially if the decadrachm and didrachm are contemporary with the early issues of the wreathed tetradrachm.

11. Athenian didrachm.

See the discussion under nos. 9 and 10.

12. Statue of Nike, or Iris, dedicated by Callimachus.

Statue: Fragment a: Athens, Acropolis Museum 228, 335, 424γ, 443, 690, 2523 and two fragments without numbers.

Capital: Fragment b: Acropolis Museum 3776,3820,3830,Θ312, and a fragment without a number.

Column: Fragments c-h: Epigraphical Museum 6339.

Inscription: IG I² 609; Hiller1926 10: Wilhelm 1934: 111-117; SEG 12.54, 14.12.Inscription and combined fragments: Hampe1939; Raubitschek 1940a; Dinsmoor 1942: 201; Jacoby 1945: 158, n. 8; Raubitschek 1945: 367; Tod 1945-1948,1: 13; Klaffenbach, in Kirchner 1948: 18 and pl.8; Raubitschek 1949: 63-64; Shefton 1950; Fraenkel 1951; Shefton 1952; Gomme 1945-1956,2: 100, n. 1.

Restorations of the inscription:

The original monument was the statue of a winged woman, a Nike or an Iris, supported by an Ionic column of Pentelic marble, The statue and the column, both destroyed in the Perserschutt, were reunited from the surviving fragments by Raubitschek (1940a:53-56 and fig. 1) during a study of archaic inscribed bases found on the Acropolis. According to Raubitschek’s reconstruction the statue and the column together must have been more than twelve feet tall and had been set up on the Acropolis as a dedication to Athena by the Polemarch Callimachus before the battle of Marathon. The reason for the dedication is not known, but the column presumably bore a dedicatory inscription upon its base, which may have explained its purpose.

The column is roughly picked all round except for two flutings cut for the engraving of two lines of inscription, running vertically downwards. This inscription has survived. It was not, however, the original dedicatory inscription since it mentions the battle of Marathon but was incised on the column after the dedication, column and statue, was already in place. Eight fragments of the column, bearing the inscription, are preserved and five go together with certainty because they either join or make a continuous text. Of the other pieces, two come at the end of the inscription, although they give no indication of the length of the gap which separates them from the rest. Finally, there is one piece, fragment f, which cannot be joined to any of the others.

Who caused the epigram extolling the heroism of Callimachus to be inscribed on the column? Not Callimachus himself, as he had been killed in the battle. Shefton (1950: 161-162) and Raubitschek (in Shefton, op. cit: 164) take the view that the inscription was engraved on the column by the deme. Raubitschek in fact has suggested a restoration which says this. Jacoby (1945: 158, n. 8) thinks that the addition of the epigram may have been made by Callimachus’ son. Whatever the case the epigram was cut in a prominent place on a column that had already been dedicated. It is not far-fetched to imagine that it was inscribed to remind the Athenians that Callimachus, as well as Miltiades, was one of the chief heroes of Marathon. Perhaps the fame of the surviving general had eclipsed somewhat the valor of the polemarch and the friends of Callimachus wanted to call attention to his part in the battle.

Subsequent editors nevertheless readily associated the dedication with the battle of Marathon. Hiller (IG I² 609, 1926:10) supposed that the statue had been dedicated by Callimachus before the battle and that he had inscribed upon the column the first of our two lines. In his view the second epigram was engraved upon the column after the battle, commemorating Callimachus’ heroic death in the hour of victory.

Supposing the statue to be one of Hermes, he brilliantly conjectured an[gelon ath]anaton in line one and thereby fixed the length of the line. Hiller’s conjecture has been accepted by all later editors, although his interpretation of the epigram, and consequently the restoration of the second line, has been challenged. It is clear that both flutings, which bear the inscription, were cut at the same time, as they were both worked in precisely the same fashion (Shefton, op. cit.: 143). Both lines of the inscription were therefore inscribed at the same time and, since reference is made to the battle of Marathon in the second line, the inscription must have ben engraved entirely after Callimachus’ death.

So far restorations of the inscription had been made before the character of the monument was known. From the reference to the “messenger of the gods” it was supposed that the column had supported a statue of Hermes. Raubitschek, however, discoverd that the plinth of one of the Acropolis marbles, a winged woman supposedly a Nike or an Iris (Langlotz, in Schraeder 1939:122ff., no. 77; Payne and Young 1936: pl. 120,1-2), fit into the abacus of an Ionic capital which he himself had reconstructed. The capital had the same diameter, where it would have joined the shaft, as the column bearing the inscription of the Callimachus’ dedication. Moreover, both the capital and the column were the only ones on the Acropolis which had this diameter. Raubitschek claimed to have identified the statue which Callimachus had dedicated.

In view of this identification Shefton submitted the stone to a thorough re-examination. He found evidence to revise readings in crucial places in the secnd and third hexameters of the last line. He reasoned that it was strange to call the battle of Marathon “the contest between the Medes and the Greeks” and claimed that in the second hexameter of the second line Ma rather than Me was to be read. Ma[rathoni might be restored here and, therefore, to indicate a reference to the battle of Marathon, ton Ma[rathoni pro h]elenon, “the contest at Marathon in behalf of the Greeks,” would, Shefton thought, give tolerable sense.

Both Hiller and Wilhelm had restored the reference to Marathon in the third hexameter. Shefton perceived that the letters before the break were mn[ and not ma[. Both mnemen and mnema were possible. He preferred the former, “memory”, to the latter, “monument”, because it seemed to make better the circumstances surrounding the dedication. In his heroic death Callimachus had in fact left a “memory of valor”.

Raubitschek restores [Tonde me demos] etheken Aphidnaio[n] tathenaiai in line one. Gomme (1945-1956,2: 100, n. 1) attacks this restoration on metrical grounds, objecting to the apparent scansion of tathenaiai as short-short-long-long. All four syllables may, however, be scanned long, in accordance with their normal quantity. Because of scriptio plena, nu-movable may be written after a vowel and not prevent elision, in archaic Greek inscriptions (Herzog, Umschrift: 6-7). This is the case with etheken and hence the demotic in the genitive plural may be restored. In this restoration the dedicator becomes “the deme of the Aphidnaians” instead of “Callimachus of Aphidna”. Seen in this light the Callimachus dedication is transformed from a private dedication to a public memorial of Callimachus’ heroism. Raubitschek noted that Meritt’s suggestion euksamenos was possible as the beginning of line two.

13. Epigrams for Marathon on a monument erected in the Demosion Sema.

a) Epigrams known as the “Marathon epigrams.”

b) The monument in the Demosion Sema.

The so-called Marathon Epigrams, known in part since 1845, are now reconstructed in a monument set up in the Demosion Sema. A base supports serveral stelae, indicating that it is a memorial for Marathon but, as it was set up, probably, in the 470’s, it is in the context of the Persian Wars in general.

14. Painting depicting the battle of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile.

Aeschines 3.186 (addressing Athenian jurors):

Ps-Demosthenes 59.94 (addressing Athenian jurors):

Pausanias 1.15.3 (Pausanias mentions, in order, four paintings in the Stoa Poikiler: the battle at Oenoe between Athens and Sparta, the Amazonomachy, the Sack of Troy, and the battle of Mrathon):

Pausanias 1.15.3 (Pausanias mentions, in order, four paintings in the Stoa Poikile: the battle at Oinoe between Athens and Sparta, the Amazonomachy, the sack of Troy, and, finally, the battle of Marathon}.

The manner in which the battle was depicted, with Miltiades in the front ranks, heroes aaiding the Greek cause, and Callimachus prominently displayed, doubtless helped in developing the legend of Marathon in Athens. It is interesting that in his brief picture of the battle Herodotus mentions the heroism of Callimachus, Stesilaus, and Cynegeirus (6.114) and tells the story of the blinding of Epizelus (6.117). Of these the painting showed Callimachus (Aelian, Nat. Anim. 7.38; Pausanias, ibid.; Pliny 35.57); Cynegeirus (Aelian, ibid.; Lucian, Juppiter Tragoedus 32: Pliny, ibid.); and Epizelus (Aelian, ibid.).

15. Temple of Eukleia in the Agora.

Pausanias 1.14.5 (Pausanias, describing the Agora, mentions the Eleusinion and then passes on to the Temple of Eukleia.):

Plutarch, Aristides 20.70-8:

Pausanias is the only authority that the Temple of Eukleia in the Agora at Athens was a monument for the battle of Marathon. Plutarch states that Eukleia is identified with Artemis and there was also a sanctuary of Eukleia in Plataea (See no. 85) as well as in every market place in Boeotia and Lokris. Furthermore, Pausanias himself mentions a temple of Artemis Eukleia in Thebes (9,17.1). Eukleia is not mentioned in Athenian inscriptions until the first and second centuries A. D. (IG II/III² 1035, l. 53; 3738; 4193, l. 13; and Agora inv. I 849, l. 5) and in these inscriptions is associated with Eunomia. Whether this association goes back to the time of the Persian Wars, however, is open to doubt (Jessen 1905-1913: 996-997). Perhaps Eukleia is also to be identified with Artemis at Athens in the early fifth century. For the worship of Artemis in connection with Marathon see no. 22.

16. Sanctuary of Pan on the north slope of the Acropolis.

Herodotus 6.105 (mentioning an action of the Athenian generals before marching to Marathon):

Pausanias 1.28.4:

Anth. Pal (Plan 232):

“I am the goat-footed Pan, the Arcadian, whom against the Medes

Miltiades with the Athenians set up.”

The sanctuary mentioned by Herodotus is probably a large cave on the north slope of the Acropolis, to the east of a smilar cave of Apollo (Judeich 1931: 301-302) but this is not certain. No evidence of the practice of a cult of Pan was found in the cave itself but Pan reliefs and dedications have been found on the Acropolis, ranging in date from the fifth century B. C. into the Roman era (Brommer 1961: 993). Herodotus says that the sanctuary was “beneath” the Acropolis and Pausanias does not mention the site. A sanctuary of Pan on the Acropolis is, however, also mentioned by Euripides (Ion, 938) and Aristophanes (Lysistrata, 911).

The sanctuary of Pan is also mentioned by Lucian (Dial. deorum 22.3 and Bis accusatus 9) and a Scholiast on Clement of Alexandria (Protrept. 3.44). An epigram in the Palatine Anthology (Plan. 232) purporting to be a dedicatory epigram on a statue of Pan set up by Miltiades is probably not by Simonides but may be of the fifth century (Hauvette 1894: 61). For other sites in Attica of cults of Pan see Brommer 1961: 993-994 and, most recently, J. Papademetriou 1958 and 1959. There is no doubt that Pan was worshipped in Athens in the fifth century and later that the Pan cult was established, as Herodotus says, on account of the god’s aid at Marathon.

Herodotus is also the earliest and most reliable source for the torch race in honor of Pan, but it is also mentioned by the Patmos Scholiast on Demosthenes 57.43 and by Photius (s. v. lampas). An inscription of 421/0 B. C., IG I² 84, dealing with regulations concerning the Hephaestaea, mentions torch races for the Panathenaea, the Promethea, and the Hephaestaea. There is certainly no resaon to doubt the historian, however, because the inscription does not directly concern the ceremony in honor of Pan, or perhaps the torch race may have lapsed by the end of the fifth century (Corbett 1949: 349). The torch race itself was originally the transference of fire, for cathartic purposes, from one altar to the other and Pan’s torch race may have started, like the others, from the altar of Prometheus (Wecklein 1873; Farnell 1896-1909: 378). It may be symbolic of Phidippides’ race to Sparta during which Pan appeared. For another torch race connected with the Persian Wars see no. 85.

17. Statue group of Athens, Apollo, Miltiades and ten Athenian heroes dedicated at Delphi.

Pausanias 10.10.1 (Pausanias has just mentioned the wooden horse dedicated by the Argives.):

Pausanias is the only authority for this famous statue group of Athena, Apollo, Miltiades and ten Athenian heroes dedicated at Delphi as a tithe from the spoils of Marathon. He says that the sculptor was Phidias and, therefore, the dedication must have been made in the 470’s or 460’s (Richter 1951: 8; Morgan 1952: 314). In the decade after Marathon Phidias would have been too young to have been entrusted with such an important commission. Because the statue group was a dedication for Marathon A. Furtwängler (1895: 55-57) doubted that Pausanias was correct in attributing it to Phidias, but there is really no difficulty in assigning a late date to an important memorial for Marathon. The renowned painting of the battle in the Stoa Poikila could not have been earlier than ca. 460 (See no. 14).

The statue group stood on the Sacred Way near the east entrance of the precinct of Apollo (Pomtow 1901: 1214). Near the gate the lower courses of the base are apparently still in position. There are partial remains of two courses of limestone blocks, joined by Z- and T-clamps, the upper course slightly smaller and then set back from the lower. On the top surface of the upper course are holes for dowels. None of the actual bases of the statues are preserved, nor is the dedicatory inscription.

18. Bronze statue of Athena dedicated on the Acropolis.

Demosthenes 19.272:

Pausanias 1.28.2:

Pausanias 9.4.1:

Schol. Demosthenes 22.13:

Aristides 2,228 Dindorf:

Schol., Aristides, Panathenaicus (3, 320 Dindorf):

A colossal bronze statue was dedicated on the Acropolis in commemoration of the victory at Marathon or possibly for the Persian Wars in general. It was made by Phidias and stood some forty meters east of the Propylaea, almost on their axis. Since Athena’s helmet and part of the shield were visible at sea when one passed Cape Sunium (Paus. 1.28.2), the statue must have been about 25-30 feet tall (Stevens 1936: 491-494). On Athenian coins of the Roman Imperial period the statue is represented as a single figure standing between the Erechtheum and the Propylaea (Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner 1885-1887: pl. Z, 1-7).

In classical antiquity it was probably known as the bronze Athena (Demosthenes 19.272) but a scholiast on Demosthenes referred to it as the Athena Promachos (22.13).

Still extant on the Acropolis are the rock cuttings for the platform and some blocks of poros foundation, the whole 5.26 meters square and supporting the base of the famous statue. The base itself is not extant in situ but three marble blocks have been assigned to it, two of which are inscribed on the outer lateral surface with letters of what must have been a dedicatory inscription (IG 1.361), although this is not certain since only six letters are preserved. Since small dowel holes appear on the top surface of all three blocks, and these holes are larger on the two inscribed blocks than they are on the third, Raubitschek and Stevens have conjectured that trophies of some sort were displayed around the outer edge of the base and the statue itself set up in the center. A drawing of their reconstruction appears in Raubitschek and Stevens 1946: 107, fig. 1.

As restored by Raubitschek the inscription states that the dedication is ek ton Medikon and Demosthenes says that it was an offering set up by Athens from the war against the barbarians and that money for the statue was provided by the Greeks. His reference to “the Greeks” is puzzling, for it is highly unlikely that the statue was a Panhellenic dedication set up on the Athenian Acropolis. Pausanias (1.28.2) says that the statue was dedicated from the spoils of Marathon, and Aristides calls it “the Marathonian statue” (2,288 Dindorf). Demosthenes’ language may with some difficulty be interpreted as to agree with Pausanias and Aristides, or it may be intentionally vague. Yet there is no clear agreement among the literary sources as to the battle commemorated by this famous statue.

The date of the dedication is fairly certain, within limits, since the building accounts for the statue have survived in a fragmentary inscription (IG I² 338). The accounts cover the annual expenditures for a nine-year period and all nine years were apparently inscribed at the same time, because of the uniformity of the lettering. Three stroke sigma is the only letter which may be used for dating and indicates that the inscription was engraved before 447/6 B. C. From a close examination of the other letters Dinsmoor believes that the accounts were inscribed in the middle of the 450’s but Meritt prefers a date at the end of the decade. The few surviving letters of the dedicatory inscription support the date indicated by the building record.

A date in the 450’s need hardly contradict the tradition that the bronze Athena was a memorial for Marathon. The painting of the battle in the Stoa Poikile (no. 14) may be dated ca. 460 at the earliest and the statue group of gods, heroes, and Miltiades sent to Delphi (no. 17) is doubtless to be dated at some time during Cimon’s administration. The Athenians were quite proud of Marathon and could easily at that time have commissioned Phidias to make a splendid bronze statue. Moreover, since it took nine years for him to complete his work, the idea for the memorial may have been conceived in the 460’s. For another statue of Athena by Phidias, probably also a memorial for Marathon, see no. 24.

19. Sanctuary of Theseus.

Plutarch, Theseus 35.8-36.1,2:

Pausanias 1.17.2 (Pausanias has just mentioned the Gymnasium of Ptolemy, which is a short distance from the Agora.):

After the invasion of Xerxes had been successfully repulsed, early in the administration of Cimon the Athenians sought the advice of the Delphic oracle and were ordered to recover the bones of Theseus and honor him as a hero. Accordingly Cimon recovered the remains of Theseus from Scyros and at the same time attacked piracy on the island. Theseus was buried in the middle of the city in a splendid sanctuary established for him (Plut., Theseus 36.2).

This sanctuary, known as the Theseum, was famous in antiquity. Thucydides (6.61) speaks of troops bivouacking there; Aristophanes (Knights 1311) of runaway slaves fleeing to it as an asylum; Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 15, 62) of an assembly held there; Strabo (9.396) calls it one of the most sacred sanctuaries in Athens. It is mentioned in a number of other late authors and in a few inscriptions of Hellenistic and Roman times (Wycherley 1957: 113-119).

20. Older Parthenon.

The Parthenon was built upon the foundations of an earlier temple which had been destroyed by a fire of great magnitude. The earlier temple is usually designated the Older Parthenon. Dinsmoor (1934) has suggested that it was planned as a memorial for the battle of Marathon and he bases his theory on dating the beginning of the temple just after 490 B. C.

This date is likely for a number of reasons. The building material used in the foundation is Pentelic marble, which did not become readily available until after the battle of Marathon. The potsherds found in the fill of the foundations belong to the decade 500-490 but not earlier or later. There are traces of fire on these foundations and a layer of burned debris above the fill. It seems natural to assume that the temple was begun shortly after Marathon and then destroyed, such as it was, in 480 B. C.

To these cogent architectural and stratigraphic arguments Dinsmor believes that further evidence is added by astronomical data. He suggested that Aristides, as archon and “supervisor of public revenues”, epimeletes ton demosion prosodon (Plut., Aristides 4.3), began the temple in 489/88 B. C. This would coincide with the Panathenaic festival of 488 B. C. In that year sunrise occurred exactly along the line of the temple’s axis on the third day from the end of Hekatombaion. The month of the festival. Dinsmoor believes this fact indicates a significant time for the building of a splendid new temple for Athena (1942: 202-206).

21. Old Propylon.

The predecessor of the Periclean Propylaea is designated the Old Propylon. Like the Older Parthenon it was destroyed by fire and the Propylaea later built on its foundations. The strongest argument for considering it a monument to Marathon is that it is generally associated with the same building program as the Older Parthenon (no. 20). No one formally states that the Old Propylon was a monument, but Dinsmoor seems to imply it (1942: 206-207), and if Marathon indeed provided the impulse for monumental building in Pentelic marble on the Acropolis, the entrance to the Acropolis was certainly one of these monuments.

The inner face of the flank wall of the marble dado shows traces of a great fire and these traces are also found on the marble anta of the Propylon (Dinsmoor 1942: 206-212). The traces of fire are partially concealed by repairs of a makeshift nature (stucco and inserted poros blocks), which seem to indicate that the fire was the destruction of 480 B. C. According to Dinsmoor (op. cit.), these repairs are characteristic of the workmanship of 479 B. C. Repair of the Propylon at that time would not violate the terms of the Oath of Plataea (no. 30) because the Propylon was not a sanctuary.

22. Annual sacrifice of five hundred kids to Artemis Agrotera.

Agoracritus (describing an assembly meeting to the Chorus):

“And I, when I knew that I was seated anong the Councillors,

sacrified with two hundred cows,

and to the Agrotera I vowed to offer a thousand kids tomorrow, if they might become three hundred for an obol.”

Xenophon. Anabasis 3.2.12:

Plutarch, De Herodoti malignitate 26:

Before the battle of Marathon the Athenians vowed to sacrifice to Artemis Agrotera, if victorious, as many kids as there were Persians dead on the field. After the battle they decided to sacrifice 500 kids yearly as a token offering. Xenophon (Anabasis 3.2.12) reports the content of the vow and states that in his time it was still being fulfilled.

Inscriptions of late Hellenistic and Roman time attest a procession in which Athenian ephebes wearing armor make sacrifices to Artemis Agrotera (IG II/III² 1006, ll. 8, 58;1008, l. 7; 1011, l. 7; 1028, l. 8; 1029, l. 6; 1030, l. 5; 1040, l. 5). Similarly Plutarch mentions a sacrificial procession to the shrine of the goddess in Agrae, which may possibly be connected with the ephebic procession if not with that of the fifth century (De Herodoti malignitate 26 ad init.; Deubner 1956: 209). Raubitschek (1940a: 53) believes that Callimachusa made this vow before the battle. Although not a physical structure the sacrifice may be considered a kind of monument, since in its annual renewal it recalls the battle of Marathon and recognizes the aid of Artemis in that battle. For another example of the worship of Artemis in connection with Marathon see no. 15.

23. Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnus with statue of Nemesis.

Pausanias 1.33.2-3:

The temple of Nemesis at Rhamnus dates probably from the decade of the 430’s B. C. (Dinsmoor 1950: 181-183 and 1961: 179). Stylistically it is the work of the architect of the Hephaisteion and shows the influence of the Parthnon. It was left unfinished at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. Dinsmoor suggests that it was begun on the festival day of the Nemesieia (Boedromion 5, September 30) and the astronomical and calendrical evidence of 436 is the most suitable date in the decade for the beginning of a new temple. Near the temple of Nemesis at Rhamnus is the earlier temple of Themis, dating from the sixth century and apparently not destroyed by the Persians (Herter 1935: 2347).

Pausanias says that the cult statue of Nemesis in this temple was made by Phidias from the very block of marble the Persians had brought with them to make a trophy of their expected victory. The story is repeated by the Scholiast on Aristides, Panathenaikos (3,133 Dindorf) and there a few late epigrams in the Planudean Anthology on this theme (4.221, 222, 263).

A fragment of the head of this famous statue is preserved in the British Museum (Smith 1892-1904,1: no. 460). The statue is generally attributed not to Phidias but to Agorakritos of Paros, a pupil of Phidias, and may not have been made until late in the decade of the 420’s (Richter 1929: 240-242).

The statue of Nemesis was almost double life size and stood in the center of a large base which bore relief sculpture on its sides. In this relief Helen was depicted as being conducted to Nemesis by Leda in a central panel and on both sides of these figures, around the base, others watched the action. These were Tyndareus, the Dioscuri, a young man mounted on a horse, Agamemnon, Menelaus, Pyrrhus the son of Achilles, and another young man named Epochus (Paus. 1.33.8). Considerable fragments of this relief have been found (Staes, Eph. Arch. [1891] 63-70) and are preserved in the National Museum in Athens (Svoronos 1909-1937,1: 167-179, nos.203-214).

Svoronos interpreted the relief as representing Helen’s homecoming after Troy. Pausanias (1.35.1) says that one of the small islnds off the coast of Attica near Salamis was in fact named after Helen. Svoronos thinks that, although the scene depicted is of the Trojan War, the relief is symbolically connected with the Persian Wars, especially since Helen is being led to Nemesis as though in retribution for the Persian invasion.

Herter (1935: 2351-2352) believes that Marathon, rather than the Persian Wars in general, is commemorated by the statue and the temple of Nemesis. Herter is cautious about this connection but believes the hypothesis supported by the relief and the legend as related by Pausanias. In the late date for the building of the temple (nearly sixty years after Marathon) and the making of the statue is a distinct difficulty for this theory but there were Marathon memorials in the 460’s (nos. 14,17,18) and during succeedingdecades architects, sculptors, and craftsmen in Attica were busy in the Periclean building program. During this time the inhabitants of Rhamnus could well have remembered how Nemesis had protected them at the time of the first invasion of the Persians and then have proceeded to erect a temple to her and comission a magnificent statue.

24. Monuments at Plataea associated with the cult of Athena Areia.

a. Temple of Athena Areia.

b. Statue of Athena by Phidias.

c. Statue of Arimnestos, the Plataean commander at Marathon and Plataea.

Plutarch, Aristides 20.3:

Pausanias 9.4.1-2:

The cult of Athena Areia at Plataea was established after the battle of Marathon (Farnell 1896-1909,1: 356-357; Kirsten 1950: 2326), doubtless because of the assistance rendered Athens by Plataea in that battle (Hdt. 6.108). Pausanias (9.4.1) says that the temple of Athena Areia at Plataea was built from the spoils of Marathon.

In the Oath of Plataea, sworn before the battle of Plataea, the Greeks resolved to leave destroyed temples in ruins as a memorial of Persian impiety (no. 30) but an exception may have been made in this instance, since the Plataeans were awarded the prize for valor. It was also possible that the temple was not rebuilt until the 450’s when Phidias made the cult statue. At this time sentiment toward rebuilding was beginning to change, as may be seen in Pericles’ building program for the Athenian Acropolis which was undertaken in 448. At any rate the temple was probably a small one, since no trace of its remains has been uncovered in excavations of Plataea (De Ridder 1920).

The cult statue by Phidias was probably made about the same time as the Athena Promachos (no. 18). In his account of Phidias’ statue of Athena for Pellene in Achaea Pausanias seems to imply that the Plataean Athena and the Athena Promachos were contemporary or nearly so (7.27.2; Morgan 1952: 320). This suggests a date in the 450’s; if the temple was built at roughly the same time, such a date would agree with the presumed activity of Polygnotus whose paintings decorated the temple and who may have worked, with Micon and Panaenus, on the painting of the battle of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile (no. 14) in the late 460’s or early 450’s (Morgan, op. cit.).

Pausanias says that near the statue of Athena was a statue of Arimnestos, the Plataean commander at Marathon and Plataea (cf. Plutarch, Aristides 11.5; De Herodoti malignitate 9.72). Neither Plutarch nor Herodotus state that Arimnestos commanded at Marathon but both mention him in accounts of the battle of Plataea. They need not contradict the testimony of Pausanias, who may have read an inscription on the base of Arimnestos’ statue. Since Athens sent to Delphi during the decade of the 460’s the famous statue group of gods, heroes and Miltiades (no. 17), the Plataeans may also have set in the temple of Athena Areia at this time a statue of their commander at Marathon. It is unlikely that the statue was placed in the temple before Plataea, however, if the temple was built originally in the decade after Marathon. It was probably added after the temple was rebuilt.