This PDF fi le of your paper in The Panathenaic Games belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright.

As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it, but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web or in any other form.

An offprint from

THE PANATHENAIC GAMESProceedings of an international conference held at the University

of Athens, May 11–12, 2004

edited by

OLGA PALAGIA AND ALKESTIS CHOREMI-SPETSIERI

© Oxbow Books 2007

ISBN 978 1 84217 221 6 1 84217 221 2

Contents

Foreword by Olga Palagia and Alkestis Choremi-Spetsieri

Panathenaic amphoras ...................................................................................................................................... 1Michalis Tiverios

Panathenaic prizes and dedications ............................................................................................................... 21 Petros Themelis

Gods and athletic games ................................................................................................................................ 33 Jon D. Mikalson

Replicating tradition: the fi rst celebrations of the Greater Panathenaia ........................................................ 41 Jenifer Neils

Games at the lesser Panathenaia? .................................................................................................................. 53 Stephen V. Tracy

The iconography of the Athenian apobates race: origins, meanings, transformation ................................... 59 Peter Schultz

Torch race and vase-painting ......................................................................................................................... 73 Martin Bentz

A unique new depiction of a Panathenaic victor ........................................................................................... 81 John H. Oakley

Panathenaic prize amphorae from the Kerameikos: some new aspects and results .................................... 91 Norbert Eschbach

“Not that the vases are easy to interpret...” Some thoughts on Panathenaic prize amphorae .................... 101 Bettina Kratzmüller

Λευκοί παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς και μουσικοί αγώνες Despina Tsouklidou ................................................................................................................................ 109

“Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests .........................................................117 Hans Rupprecht Goette

Δραματικοί αγώνες και αρχιτεκτονική στη νότια κλιτύ της Ακροπόλεως .................................................. 127 Panos Valavanis

Royal Athenians: the Ptolemies and Attalids at the Panathenaia ................................................................ 135 Julia L. Shear

The Panathenaic stadium from the Hellenistic to the Roman period: Panathenaic prize-amphorae and the Biel throne ................................................................................................................................. 147

Dyfri Williams

Athens and Herculaneum: the case of the Panathenaic Athenas ................................................................. 159Carol C. Mattusch

Colourr Plates .............................................................................................................................................. 165

Foreword

The papers in this volume were presented at an international conference organised in Athens on May 11–14, 2004. It was hosted by the University of Athens and sponsored by the Greek Ministry of Culture and the As-sociation of Friends of the Acropolis. The occasion was provided by the Olympic Games of Athens in 2004. The Olympics gave us the opportunity to experience the games at Athens in the exhilarating environment of international competition, athletic contests in the Panathenaic Stadium, prize awards witnessed by a cast of thousands, and the festive atmosphere of torch races, musical and theatrical events, regattas in the Piraeus and celebrations on the Athenian Acropolis.

On the occasion of the Athens Olympics the First (Acropolis) Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiq-uities refurbished the Agora Museum, conducted fresh investigations of the Panathenaic Way and organised a display of the newly conserved west frieze of the Parthenon in the Acropolis Museum. It issued a series of guidebooks on sites administered by the Ephorate, and collaborated with the information and education service of the Committee for the Restoration of the Acropolis Monuments on a new educational programme concerning the depiction of the Panathenaic procession on the Parthenon frieze and the games at Athens.

Scholars celebrated the games at Athens in their own way. The complex problems posed by the study of the Panathenaic Games, a Panhellenic athletic event that lasted for nearly a millennium, demand an interdis-ciplinary approach. An international assembly of archaeologists, art historians, ancient historians, epigraphists and classical scholars contributed to the discussion of the origins and the historical development of the Pana-thenaic Games in general and of individual contests in particular. The role of royal and other patrons in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, as well as the form and meaning of victory dedications and other monuments generated by the games were also examined. The question of the function of Panathenaic prize amphorae, introduced by the keynote speaker Michalis Tiverios, prompted a lively and ultimately very rewarding debate that reverberates through the pages of the proceedings.

The Panathenaic Games conference was held thanks to the initiative of the Association of Friends of the Acropolis and its president emeritus, Ph. Stratos, who raised funds and provided the inspiration. The publica-tion of this volume was made possible through a generous grant of the Association of Friends of the Acropolis and Titan Group. We are grateful to the rector of the University of Athens, Georgios Babiniotis, for the use of the Drakopoulos auditorium and to the vice rector, Michalis Dermitzakis, for his support. David Brown kindly agreed to publish this volume in his monograph series.

Bibliographical abbreviations follow the guidelines of the German Archaeological Institute as published in Archäologischer Anzeiger 112, 1997, 612–625.

Olga Palagia Alkestis Choremi-Spetsieri The University of Athens Acropolis Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities

“Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests

Hans Rupprecht Goette

IntroductionThe Athenian democracy fi nanced a major portion of citizen services, especially cultural events, by means of private sponsorship provided by wealthy citizens designated as choregoi.1 Such sponsors included the gym-nasiarchs and choregoi for several festivals and competitions. Best known are the choregic offerings erected after victories in dithyrambic competitions at the City Dionysia:2 these took many forms and varied over time, from small bases with the choregic inscriptions on their faces to architectural structures that resemble temples. All primarily served as supports of the victory prize, i.e. the bronze tripod, which the victorious choregos received together with an ivy wreath from the Athenian state.3

This paper takes up another kind of choregic monument: those erected by sponsors of contests held at the Panathenaia. As we will see, unlike their Dionysia counterparts, it is much more diffi cult to defi ne and locate the choregic monuments commemorating Panathenaic victories.

TerminologyPart of the diffi culty lies in determining exactly what constitutes a choregic monument. For example, tripods set up on bases are typical prizes given by the state to successful choregoi of the dithyrambic competitions in the Dionysia. The accompanying inscriptions name the sponsors of a tribe. When we look at the victory monuments (usually just the bases) for the Panathenaia, we cannot be sure if they were set up by the chore-goi, the teams or single athletes. The inscriptions moreover suggest many and varied prizes for the several contests. So the question arises: what prize would a victorious choregos of a Panathenaic contest receive from the state for public display on a choregic monument?

Two conditions must be met before we identify a choregic monument in commemoration of a Panathenaic competition: fi rst, the contest has to be limited to Athenians, and second, the competition must be organized by a tribe.4

Literary and epigraphical sourcesLysias’ speech 21 and IG II2 2311 (Fig. 1), both of the fourth century B.C., are the primary evidence for such contests. Boat races apart, there were fi ve competitions fulfi lling the conditions just mentioned: euandria, kyklios choros in a dithyrambic competition, pyrrhiche, lampadedromia (lampas), and anthippasia. The vic-

1 P. Wilson, The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia (Cambridge 2000) passim; bibliography: 395–420.2 IG II2 3027–3062, 3073–3089; Wilson (supra n. 1) 21–25, 199–235.3 RE Supplement 8 (1956) 861–888, s.v. Tripodes (H. Riemann); P. Amandry, BCH 100, 1976, 15–93; id., BCH 121, 1997, 445–487;

H. R. Goette, in M. Fano Santi (ed.), Studi di archeologia in onore di Gustavo Traversari I (2004) 463–476.4 In IG II2 2311 the tribal events are listed at the end (Fig. 1), so contests for Athenians are separated from those open to all: S.

V. Tracy, Nikephoros 4, 1991, 146–147; J. L. Shear, ZPE 142, 2003, 87–108, esp. 90–91 nn. 7, 11; Mind and Body, 43–44 with fi g.; Agon, 340–341, no. 208 with fi g. See also M. Tiverios, P. Themels, S. V. Tracy, this volume. On tribal competitions in Athens, see M. Rausch, Nikephoros 11, 1998, 83–105, esp. 95–102.

118 Hans Rupprecht Goette

tory prizes in at least four of these contests (the prize for the winning tribe of the anthippasia is not attested5) were oxen (Fig. 1) and a certain amount of money; this makes a remarkable difference from the olive oil (usually thought to have been handed over in Panathenaic amphorae6) or crowns awarded to athletic and mu-sical competition winners. We can imagine that the animals were sacrifi ced and consumed by the victorious tribal groups as was the case for the naval race, where the members of the fastest boat received three bulls and additionally 200 meals. What is not clear is: to whom were the oxen awarded? Were the animals the prize of a l l members of the tribal team or were they bestowed on the choregos, who then invited his team for a meal? And since the prize was not an object to be set up like a tripod, what did the victorious choregos dedicate? An additional complication is the fact that there were prizes not only for the winning tribe but also for individual winners in a tribal Panathenaic contest – at least this is true of the torch race and seems to be true of the euandria as well; who, then, dedicated choregic monuments to commemorate the victory?

The monumentsWith these questions in mind, let us examine the evidence for the victory monuments associated with the fi ve Panathenaic tribal contests.

First, the euandria: this contest of “manly excellence” is much discussed. We do not know what it involved though speculation abounds.7 IG II2 3022 is a choregic inscription of the mid fourth century that mentions the euandria in addition to the lampadedromia at the Panathenaia. Unfortunately, the inscription has come down to us as a fragmentary marble slab, so we do not know the type of monument to which it belonged; was it, for example, part of a statue base? Evidence from a contemporary Attic writer, once thought to be Andocides (IV 42), supports the idea that the euandria was funded by a liturgy and executed according to tribal order. In Xenophon’s Memorabilia, Socrates claims that “no other city can bring together euandria to compare with those in Athens” – so the Panathenaic euandria must have provided a means for the Athenian state to promote its ideals of male physical and aesthetic excellence. But at present, what we know about the

5 Shear (171 n. 37) thinks it “highly likely that the successful team in the anthippasia” received oxen as well.6 See N. Eschbach and P. Themelis in this volume for a view that Panathenaic amphorae did not hold olive oil.7 Rausch (supra n. 4) 100–101, citing the ancient literary sources and the modern discussion.

Fig. 1. Athens, Epigraphical Museum 8070+8092. Detail of the Panathenaic prize list IG II2 2311.

“Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests 119

euandria is so vague that it is not possible to defi ne it any further, nor can we associate with certainty any victory monument with it.

Lampadedromia: as already noted, IG II2 3022 mentioning a victory in the torch race provides no informa-tion about the type of monument to which it belonged. All one can say is that the speech of “Andocides,” confi rming that the contest was funded by a sponsor, allows us to posit that the inscription belonged to a monument of a choregos who funded teams of both a torch race a n d a contest of euandria.

Torch races occurred not only at the Panathenaia but also at the festivals of the Prometheia and the Heph-aisteia in Athens, the Nemesia at Rhamnous, the Bendideia at Piraeus and several other festivals honoring gods (Eros, Pan, Hermes) and heroes (Theseus, Heracles), at least in Classical times. Reliefs of Nemesis at Rhamnous were dedicated by the gymnasiarchs of the victorious teams.8 Scholia to Demosthenes and Aris-tophanes also attest to this practice.

8 O. Palagia, in Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων. Mythes et cultes: Études d´iconographie en l´honneur de Lilly Kahil, BCH Supplement 38 (2000) 403–408. – For the torch race, see now Agon, 234–237; M. Bentz, this volume.

Fig. 2. Athens, Acropolis Museum 3176+5460+2635. Statue base dedicated after a victory of the tribe of Oineis.

120 Hans Rupprecht Goette

Pointing to iconographical similarities with Attic vase paintings, F. Rausa has demonstrated that a large statue base with a relief depicting young athletes as apoxyomenoi in the Acropolis Museum might be connected with a victory monument after a torch race (Fig. 2 and Colour Pl. 10).9 The demotics attached to the preserved names of the athletes inscribed below the fi gures indicate that the team belonged to the tribe of Oineis. The fi ndspot of the base, the Acropolis, suggests that the celebrated torch race took place at the Panathenaia but this remains hypothetical. Because the Athenian Acropolis was the most prominent place for dedications in Athens, one cannot exclude the possibility that the torch race was held in honor of another deity. I would moreover argue that it is possible to interpret the base as a victory monument for a contest of euandria. As both the main inscription with the dedication and the statue standing on the base are lost, we do not know the identity of the dedicant and whether he was named as a choregos or gymnasiarch; whether the monument was erected by an individual winner in a torch race or by the whole group of athletes, either lampadephoroi or contestants in the euandria; and the appearance of the statue or statues once placed on the base eludes us. Its long rectangular shape suggests that more than one statue originally stood on it; possibilities include, but are not limited to, a portrait of the sponsor who funded the team or of the individual winner, or images of a personifi cation, deity, or heroes, such as the eponymous heroes of Oineis, or a depiction of the god honored by the contest. In sum, we must conclude that again we lack suffi cient information to designate this monu-ment as a choregic dedication with any degree of certainty.

The same is true of the fragment of another Attic statue base in the Musée Rodin in Paris (CO 229).10 The depiction of athletes with torches makes it highly likely that the relief fragment is part of a monument commemorating a victory in a lampadedromia; but we do not know for which deity, at which festival, or by whom (choregos, gymnasiarch, or a member of the team) the dedication was made.

Anthippasia: the situation here is more promising. We know three reliefs, two of them on bases erected after a tribal victory. Since Julia Shear has recently discussed these monuments in extenso, I can summarize the arguments briefl y. 11

The statue base Agora I 7515 showing rid-ers on the two long sides is a monument for a certain Hierophanes son of Polyaratos of Alopeke, who competed with the anthippasia team of the tribe Antiochis.12 Hierophanes may have been a hipparch or a phylarch, a point to which I shall return. Because he was not the dedicant (the tribe set it up in his honor), it is not truly a choregic monu-ment. The base supported a pillar carrying the now lost and unknown dedication. The reliefs and the surviving inscription suggest that the original monument was intended to be seen from all sides. Shear proposed that a double sided relief crowned the pillar, similar to that set up by the tribe Leontis, now in the Agora Museum (Fig. 3).13 While one side of the Leontis relief shows a group – there were once about 15 fi gures – of youthful riders with a bearded, older offi cer bringing up the rear, the inscription and a depiction of the heraldic

9 Athens, Acropolis Museum 3176+5460+2635: Mind and Body, 180–182, no. 71 with fi g.; Rausa, 192–217, pls. 34–35; Agon, 38, fi g. 2. – This base is now in the Museum of the History of the Ancient Olympic Games in Olympia.

10 J. Frel, Les sculpteurs attiques anonymes 450–300 (1969) 47, no. 335, pl. 42; Kosmopoulou, 203, no. 38, fi g. 59.11 Shear passim, with catalogue and bibliography of the related monuments: 175–180. 12 Shear, 177–178, pl. 6.13 Athens, Agora I 7167: Mind and Body, 335–337, no. 226 with fi g.; J. M. Camp, The Athenian Agora. Excavations in the Heart

of Classical Athens (1986) 121–122, fi gs. 96–97; Shear, 171, fi g. 1; 177; Agon, 240–241, no. 128 with fi g.

Fig. 3. Athens, Agora Museum I 7167. Double sided relief by the tribe Leontis after a victory in the anthippasia.

“Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests 121

fi gure of a lion on the reverse reveal that the tribe Leontis won an equestrian contest, which must have been the anthippasia.

Although it seems an attractive idea that double reliefs crowned the pillars on top of bases like that in the Agora (I 7515, see n. 10), it is puzzling that part of the inscription on this base was written on the left, i.e. the short side and perhaps continued on the fourth or right side, which is not preserved. The closest parallel to the Agora base is the so-called Bryaxis base in the National Museum (Fig. 4),14 also found in the Agora and also decorated with reliefs not only on one or two sides but on three, while the fourth is inscribed with three names (father and two sons) of phylarchs from the tribe Pandionis.15 That the phylarchs were victorious in the anthippasia is noted in the inscription and indicated in the reliefs by a large tripod, which the fi gures approach. The three riders are bearded as is the offi cer on the Leontis relief (Fig. 3), therefore the man at the rear of the riders on the Agora base should be interpreted as a phylarch as well.

The tripod is a common victory token. It appears on other monuments commemorating victories at the

14 Athens, National Museum 1733: Travlos, Athens, 18, fi gs. 24–25; Mind and Body, 320–321, no. 205 with fi g.; Kaltsas, 254, no. 530 with fi g.; Kosmopoulou, 190–191, no. 27, fi g. 46; for the reconstruction of the tripod on top of this base: N. Pharaklas, ArchDelt 24 A, 1969, 59–65.

15 IG II2 3130.

Fig. 4. Athens, National Museum 1733. “Bryaxis base”, dedicated by three phylarchs after a victory of the tribe Pandionis in the anthippasia.

122 Hans Rupprecht Goette

Panathenaia.16 One example is a base in the National Museum,17 bearing the relief of a racing four-horse chariot with the charioteer in the typical long garment; he (or more probably the owner of the quadriga) should be interpreted as the dedicant of the monument.18 In any case it is highly probable that this monument celebrated a success in a quadriga race, one of the most prestigious contests of the Panathenaia.19 The prize for such a victory was a large quantity of olive oil. Thus, the tripod depicted on the base does not signify the actual prize given to the winner but simply symbolizes victory, and we are inclined to draw the same conclusion in the case of the Bryaxis base as well: it does not necessarily represent the prize for the winning tribe in the anthippasia. The circular depression with a cavity in its center on top of the Bryaxis base probably supported a small column. It was once thought that the column formed the middle support of a tripod, but if this was the case, there should be three smaller cavities around it for the tripod legs. Since these do not exist, Pharaklas and Kaltsas conclude that a small tripod was erected on top of the support, which may have been either round or three-sided. Such a reconstruction – a tripod on a support – would be visible from all sides like the base was. A similar reconstruction of the monument on the base Agora I 7515 is quite plausible.

In any case, it is not possible to determine if the anthippasia monuments were erected by the choregos on behalf of the tribe: not enough is preserved to declare them choregic monuments rather than victory monu-ments erected by individuals.

Kyklios choros performed by boys and men was the fourth tribal contest of the Panathenaia. It may have comprised a performance very similar to the Dionysia – very little is in fact known about this competition at the Panathenaia. It is not even attested as a tribal event and so the liturgical support can be doubted. But because of the great importance attached to dithyrambic competitions in major Athenian choral festivals,20 we may plausibly expect the tribal order at the Panathenaia as well. What we do know is that kyklioi choroi danced and sang at both the Lesser and the Greater Panathenaia.

A possible depiction of this dithyrambic competition appears on the left block of the well known Atarbos base in the Acropolis Museum (Fig. 5).21 Seven men in himatia – divided into two groups of four and three – are led by a much discussed female fi gure which may be interpreted as a personifi cation of the festival. The inscription on the upper moulding states that the monument was erected to commemorate a victorious kyklios choros of men.

Julia Shear has discussed this monument in detail. She showed convincingly that the whole Atarbos base, consisting of two blocks, has two phases, and that the enlargement with the block of the men´s chorus took place within the same year because the archon’s name inscribed on the right block (Fig. 5) seems to date both events. This seems the most plausible explanation, but if we follow Shear´s argument that such bases

16 It is worth mentioning here that “there is no evidence that tripods were ever awarded to victors at the Panathenaia,” Shear, 171 n. 37.

17 Athens, National Museum 2784: Kaltsas, 222, no. 461 with fi g.; Kosmopoulou, 196–197, no. 32, fi g. 51; Agon, 182, no. 72 with fi g. – There is an unpublished base with a similar depiction in the Elis Museum (Λ 88): Kosmopoulou, 198–199, no. 34, fi g. 53: this base seems to be Attic – a detailed publication including a description of the other sides would clarify this matter. – On chariot races: Agon, 178–187.

18 The broken upper surface carries a square cutting for a pillar on the left and two irregular cuttings for a statue on the right.19 These monuments – if related to Panathenaic contests – are obviously not choregic dedications because chariot races were not

tribal competitions. In this respect they are similar to the bases with apobates scenes (compare the north and south friezes of the Parthenon, cf. P. Schultz in this volume): a) Athens, Acropolis Museum 1326: I. Trianti, Το Μουσείο Ακροπόλεως (1998) 399 with fi g.; Kosmopoulou, 210, no. 43, fi g. 64; Shear, 178, pl. 5 a.b; – b) Athens, Agora Museum S 399: Mind and Body, 299, no. 187 with fi g.; Kosmopoulou, 182–183, no. 20, fi g. 38; Shear, 176, pl. 5 c–d. Since there is anathyrosis (Shear: “rusticated panel”) on both sides of this base below the upper moulding two more blocks seem to have been attached (later, in a second phase of this monument?) to this block; this reconstruction is supported by the cuttings for two stelai on the upper surface.

Votive reliefs (not bases for victory monuments) with apobates scenes are known from other sites, for example, the Amphiareion of Oropos, where they commemorated apobates victories during the Amphiareia: c) Athens, National Museum 1391: Mind and Body, 297–298, no. 186 with fi g.; Agon, 241–242, no. 129 with fi g.; – d) Berlin, Staatliche Museen 725: C. Blümel, Die klassisch grie-chischen Skulpturen (1966) 72, no. 85, fi g. 121; LIMC I (1981) s.v. Amphiaraos, no. 63 with fi g. (I. Krauskopf). Another example, in the Volos Museum, comes from Mylai: H. Biesantz, Die thessalischen Grabreliefs (1965) 126, L 56, pl. 50; Αγώνες και αθλήματα στην αρχαία Θεσσαλία, exh. cat. Volos Museum (2004) no. 22.

20 P. Wilson, in D. J. Phillips and D. Pritchard (eds.), Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World (2003) 163–196, esp. 167–170, 182–184; Shear, 173 n. 46.

21 Athens, Acropolis Museum 1338: Mind and Body, 210, no. 101 with fi g. (right block); Rausa, 226, pl. 36, 1–2; Shear, pls. 2 – 3; bibliography: 176; add Trianti (supra n. 19); Kosmopoulou, 205–206, no. 39, fi g. 60.

“Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests 123

might have been pre-fabricated and “were on hand when the victor entered the shop,” it is possible that both blocks were commissioned at the same time and after the same festival. Only the difference in letter sizes – the dedicant’s and archon’s names were cut in larger letters than the text – might be an argument in favour of an enlargement after a second festival in the same year. But if we explain the bigger size of the lettering of the names as a means of emphasizing the importance of the individuals named (the victorious events could easily be made out from the pictures) then it seems possible that the relief block with the men´s chorus shows a tribal victory at the Panathenaia.

The top of the right part of the base clearly has two phases as Shear has explained. If the left block of the Atarbos base held a monument commemorating a victory in the Dionysia as she seems to prefer, one would expect – as attested by many bases – the cavities to accommodate a bronze tripod. But there was a statue in-stead. Shear suggested a bronze statue of the choregos, Atarbos himself. This is not easy to imagine, especially since two additional statues stood on the right block, one bigger than the other. The reconstruction remains hypothetical, but I would like to propose that the eponymus hero of the winning tribe stood on the left, while the right block held a singer of the men´s chorus and a dancer of the youths’ or boys’ pyrrhiche.

Pyrrhiche: with the Atarbos base (Fig. 5) and its problems of interpretation we come to the last compe-tition commemorated by choregic monuments, the pyrrhiche, a militaristic tribal contest danced by boys, (“beardless”) epheboi, and men. Besides the Atarbos base there are two other bases commemorating this Panathenaic competition.

The Xenokles base in the Acropolis Museum (Fig. 6) was dedicated by the well known politician Xenokles

Fig. 5. Athens, Acropolis Museum 1338. Atarbos base.

Fig. 6. Athens, Acropolis Museum 6465+6465a. Xenokles base.

124 Hans Rupprecht Goette

of Sphettos as stated by the inscription. 22 Again we do not know what stood on this large base – certainly an impressive statue or two. As the inscription runs directly above the heads of the pyrrhic dancers, I would sug-gest that there was no other inscription on the plinth of the statue or elsewhere. Thus it seems that Xenokles would not have been named as choregos of the tribal team, and there was perhaps no information on the date and the victorious tribe. It is therefore possible that Xenokles was simply a member of the team and erected the monument as one of the winners.

The third example of a dedication after a victory in the pyrrhiche contest at the Greater Panathenaia is a base in the National Museum (Fig. 7).23 The inscription mentions a choregia of the boys’ pyrrhiche at the “Panathenaia ta megala” and the relief shows three naked youths, two of them wearing helmets and holding shields and spears, similar to other pyrrhiche images. But there is a major iconographical difference: one of the pyrrhichistai stands on another’s shoulder in a stance reminiscent of the iconography of Athena Proma-chos. This scene has no parallel in Greek art and is usually interpreted as a celebration after a tribal victory, the tribe being represented by only three members.

The inscription is explicit: the monument commemorates a choregia of the pyrrhiche;24 this is particularly noteworthy because the monuments in honor of tribal victories at the Panathenaia already discussed are not certain dedications of choregoi.

This base is usually thought to have been erected mainly to celebrate a victory in the pyrrhiche, and the relief scene is identifi ed as its front face. If we turn to the right side of the base (Fig. 7 right), we fi nd another inscription, written alone on the block, without an additional relief. The second inscription is again a cho-regic one and could be restored as naming a man from the deme of Pallene who won with a boys’ chorus at the Dionysia in Athens. The size and style of the letters are identical to those of the inscription on the other side. Additional, smaller letters below the choregic inscription name Amymon, probably the sculptor of the monument which stood on the base. It is now impossible to determine if it was a statue or a tripod because the top of the base is damaged.25

The sculptor’s signature on this side indicates that this is the front of the monument. The best parallel is provided by the Bryaxis base (Fig. 4), where the sculptor’s signature appears below the names of the phy-larchs, while the three other sides are decorated with reliefs. This means that the dedicants are named on the front face and I would think this also applies to the pyrrhiche monument in the National Museum.

22 Athens, Acropolis Museum 6465+6465a: Rausa, 217–234, pl. 37, 1–3; Kosmopoulou, 197–198, no. 33, fi g. 52.23 Athens, National Museum 3854: C. Poursat, BCH 91, 1967, 102–110, fi gs. 1–3; Mind and Body, 207–210, no. 100 with fi g.;

Rausa, 225, pl. 37, 4; Kaltsas, 127, no. 242 with fi g.; Kosmopoulou, 185–186, no. 23, fi g. 42; Agon, 341–342, no. 209 with fi g.24 SEG 22, 103.25 While there are no traces of a cutting for the monument on top we can see a circular cutting at the bottom of the fragmentary

block which served for attaching the base to a (stepped?) pedestal. – I am very grateful to N. Kaltsas and M. Salta for allowing me to study the base in detail when it was removed from exhibition in May 2004.

Fig. 7. Athens, National Museum 3854. Base for a choregic dedication of a man from Pallene after a victory at the City Dionysia and in the pyrrhiche contest at the Panathenaia.

“Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests 125

This base is unfortunately heavily damaged, more than half of it being lost. So we do not know if there was a relief on the opposite side from that of the pyrrhichistai. One could imagine a scene of the boy’s chorus of the Dionysia, a similar motif as on the left block of the Atarbos base – but this has to remain hypothetical. At any rate, in addition to the sculptor’s signature, the layout of the inscrip-tion – the choregic inscription for the victory at the Dionysia – without a relief supports the view that this is the face of the base. We have to conclude that the pyrrichistai are depicted on the left side and that their victory was not the principal reason for the dedication of this monument, which is instead a memorial to a victory at the Dionysia.

There is another example of such a combina-tion, i.e. a choregic monument for a dithyrambic victory at the Dionysia which commemorates other liturgies on the sides: the Glaukon monument of 280/79 B.C. (Fig. 8). From twelve fragments found in the Dionysos theater in 1862, a monument can be reconstructed to form a small, roughly square building.26 The architrave in front bears the choregic inscription, and the two sides showed, in addition to an ivy wreath in relief, six olive wreaths inscribed with six other liturgies or offi ces held by Glaukon. One of them reads, Panathenaia ta megala. We can imagine the bronze tripod given by the state to the choregos crowning the roof of this marble naiskos – this was the main purpose of the Glaukon monument: a dedication after a victory in a dithyrambic competition at the City Dionysia. We can see that this monument also commemorated other liturgies by the same person, and this provides a good parallel to the base in the National Museum with the relief of pyrrhichistai on its left side.

ConclusionThis brief survey of memorials to victories in the tribal events of the Panathenaia has demonstrated the dif-fi culties in determining which are true choregic monuments, i.e. set up by wealthy members of the tribes, who funded the tribal teams. Those that happen to be choregic dedications were set up primarily after a victory at the Dionysia, not the Panathenaia. This confi rms the observation that the monuments erected in honor of Panathenaic victories were usually not as elaborate as the monuments dedicated by the choregoi of dithyrambic competitions of the City Dionysia.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank the organizers, A. Choremi and O. Palagia, for inviting me to this interesting and stimu-lating colloquium; and J. M. Barringer for her helpful comments and for correcting my English. All photo-graphs are by the author by kind permission of the directors of the Agora Museum, the Akropolis Museum, the Epigraphical Museum and the National Archaeological Museum.

26 IG II2 3079; H. R. Goette, AM 104, 1989, 97 listed under i; Goette (supra n. 3) 473 nn. 44–45.

Fig. 8. Athens, Epigraphical Museum 8707-8711: fragment of the right side of the Glaukon monument (IG II2 3079, corona III) com-memorating a victory in the anthippasia.

126 Hans Rupprecht Goette

AbbreviationsIn addition to the abbreviations proposed by the German Archaeological Institute in AA 112, 1997 and in Archäologische Bibliographie, the following are used here:Agon N. Kaltsas (ed.), ΑΓΩΝ, exh. cat., Athens, National Archaeological Museum (2004)Kaltsas N. Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (2002)Kosmopoulou A. Kosmopoulou, The Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases in the Archaic and Classical Periods

(2002)Mind and Body O. Tzachou-Alexandri (ed.), Mind and Body. Athletic Contests in Ancient Greece, exh. cat. Athens,

National Archaeological Museum (1989)Rausa F. Rausa, AM 113, 1998, 191–234Shear J. L. Shear, JHS 123, 2003, 164–180

Bibliographical notes are restricted to the most recently published literature where further references can also be found.