The Profits of Self-Representation Statu PDF

Cities and Priests
Cult personnel in Asia Minor and the Aegean islands

from the Hellenistic to the Imperial period
Edited by
Marietta Horster and Anja Klöckner
DE GRUYTER
Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Angemeldet | opilz@uni-mainz.de Autorenexemplar
Heruntergeladen am | 20.12.13 08:27
ISBN 978-3-11-031837-1
e-ISBN 978-3-11-031848-7
ISSN 0939-2580
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen
Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet
über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar.
© 2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Druck: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
♾ Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com

Contents
Acknowledgements | VII
Abbreviations | IX
Marietta Horster, Anja Klöckner (Mainz/Gießen)

Introduction | 1
Delphine Ackermann (Poitiers)

Les prêtrises mixtes : genre, religion et société | 7
Ludwig Meier (Heidelberg)

Priests and Funding of Public Buildings on Cos and Elsewhere | 41
Isabelle Pafford (San Francisco)

Priestly Portion vs. Cult Fee – The Finances of Greek Sanctuaries | 49
Jan-Mathieu Carbon, Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge (Liège)

Priests and Cult Personnel in Three Hellenistic Families | 65
Joannis Mylonopoulos (New York)

Commemorating Pious Service:
Images in Honour of Male and Female Priestly Officers in Asia Minor
and the Eastern Aegean in Hellenistic and Roman Times | 121
Oliver Pilz (Mainz)

The Profits of Self-Representation: Statues of Female Cult Personnel
in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Periods | 155
Marietta Horster (Mainz)

Priene: Civic priests and Koinon-priesthoods
in the Hellenistic Period | 177
Christina R. Williamson (Groningen)

Civic Producers at Stratonikeia. The Priesthoods of Hekate at Lagina
and Zeus at Panamara | 209

Angemeldet | opilz@uni-mainz.de
VI | Contents
Stéphanie Paul (Liège)

Roles of Civic Priests in Hellenistic Cos | 247
Peter Kató (Heidelberg)

Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos | 279
Anja Klöckner (Gießen)

Dienerinnen der Demeter?
Zu einer Gruppe von Grabreliefs aus Smyrna | 303
Indices | 355

Angemeldet | opilz@uni-mainz.de
156 | Oliver Pilz
alistic Western society. It is unquestionable that it is not the individual, but the
social group in its various manifestations, which is at the center of Greek social
life. On that account, both the dedicatory and euergetic activity of Greek women
should be examined, inasmuch as possible, against the backdrop of the
women’s affiliation with the most important social group in this context, the
family.3 Needless to say that the same applies to honors granted by Greek poleis
to women in recognition of euergetism or the exemplary fulfillment of religious
duties. To prevent any misunderstanding, this is not to deny individual agency
to women acting in the religious field, but to underscore that their activity is
consistently tied to family interest.
Generally, the practice of setting up portraits of cult officials involves both
privately dedicated and publicly decreed statues as well as, occasionally,
painted images. Discussing some significant examples of portrait statues of
priestly women and other female cult personnel, this contribution aims to make
the family orientation of these monuments more apparent. Moreover, an at-
tempt is made to elucidate the objective social function of the practice of erec-
ting portrait statues in the public sphere, inasmuch as portraits of female cult
personnel are merely a special case of this general phenomenon. By objective
social function I mean the significance of this practice in the context of a gen-
eral economy of practices as conceptualized by Pierre Bourdieu.4 According to
Bourdieu, even practices which at first sight give the appearance of being disin-
terested ultimately comply with an economic logic directed towards the accu-
mulation of capital in its different forms, such as economic, symbolic, social
and cultural capital. What concerns us here most is symbolic capital, for in-
stance honor, prestige or reputation, but it must be clear that all forms of capital
are in principle mutually convertible. By the same token it becomes clear that
symbolic capital is an essential source of power.
Early Public Honors for Female Cult Personnel

Before engaging in a detailed examination of the statuary honors, a few remarks
on the origin of public honors for cult personnel might provide a backdrop
against which the practice of erecting public honorary statues can be better
understood.
||
3 Exemplary in this respect is van Bremen’s (1996) study.
4 Bourdieu 1990: esp. 112–134.

The Profits of Self-Representation | 157
Honors other than statues, for instance exemption from liturgies and
crowns, were awarded by civic bodies to cult personnel from the fourth century
BCE onwards. Interestingly, the earliest honorary degree for an Athenian cult
official we know of is issued not by the council or assembly but by a phylē, Pan-
dionis, honoring the priest of its eponymous hero with ateleia.5 One of the
earliest extant Greek state decrees honoring a woman holding religious office is
dated to the mid-third century.6 Timokrite, priestess of Aglauros, was awarded a
wreath of olive leaves (stephanos thallou) for fulfilling her duties in an exem-
plary manner.7 Found virtually in situ in a cave on the east slope of the Athe-
nian Acropolis, the decree locates the sanctuary of Aglauros since the decision
taken by the council and assembly stipulated that a stone stele with the text of
the degree shall be set up in her shrine.8 The proposal for honoring Timokrite
was made by Demostratos, son of Aristophanes of Paiania, who was probably
her husband.9 What is more, the decision was based on the report of the son of
the priestess, Aristophanes. The public crowning of Timokrite was thus actively
pursued by her male family members.
Awards of crowns might indeed have been the earliest honor bestowed by
Athenian civic bodies on female cult officials.10 In 325/4 BCE, the Attic deme
Aixone honored the priestess of Hebe and Alkmene with an olive crown.11 A
contemporary relief from Athens shows Nike resting on Athena’s outstretched
||
5 IG II2 1140 (386/5 BCE).
6 Dontas 1983; SEG 33.115; Lambert 2012: 101–103 no. 8.
7 Horster (2012: 193) seems to believe that the priesthood of Aglauros had an annual tenure,
but according to the regulation concerning the priesthood of Aglauros, Pandrosos and
Kourotrophos in the Salaminioi inscription it was a genos priesthood held for life (cf. Lambert
2012: 70, 77, but contrast Lambert 1999: 114–115). Note that we do not hear any more of a joint
priesthood of Aglauros and Pandrosos in the Timokrite decree and later documents. Most
likely, the priesthood had become split up by the the mid-third century, but was still supplied
by the Salaminioi genos. For further discussion, see Parker 1996: 311; Lambert 1999: 114–115;
Sourvinou-Inwood, Parker 2011: 153.
8 Dontas 1983, esp. 50, 57–62.
9 Lewis 1983. Cf. Lambert 2012: 77.
10 For the public crowning of priestesses, see Connelly 2007: 203–205. Generally on the honor
of crowning, see Scafuro 2009.
11 IG II2 1199, ll. 24–25. Not with a gold crown, a much more prestigious honor, as Turner
(1983: 396–397) believes. There is, in fact, no evidence for Athenian female cult officials
awarded with gold crowns in the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods, pace Turner 1983: 396–
397; Kron 1996: 142; Eule 2002: 212.

158 | Oliver Pilz
right hand and crowning a smaller woman.12 The woman holds a large temple
key in her left hand and can thus be identified as a priestess.13 A similar scene is
depicted on an earlier relief found near the Erechtheion and dated to the second
quarter of the fourth century BCE.14 Athena, wearing a helmet, is seated in the
center and is crowning a much smaller woman in front of her. Even though this
woman is dressed identically to the priestess crowned by Nike, it is far from
certain that she is also holding, as Joan Connelly recently suggested, a temple
key.15 It is generally believed that both reliefs originally belonged to document
stelai. Crowning is indeed the most common motif in the reliefs decorating hon-
orary decrees issued by the Athenian boulē and dēmos.16 However, especially in
the case of the earlier relief, it would be rash to conclude from the crowning
scene that the respective honorary decrees necessarily included a stephanōsis.
As Marion Meyer has rightly emphasized, crowning scenes on honorary decrees
should be regarded as formulaic expressions of honors in general.17
||
12 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung Sk 882. Meyer 1989: 301–302 no. A129 pl.
33, 1; Μάντης 1990: 41–42 pl. 12; Lawton 1995: 151–152 no. 164 pl. 86; Pirenne-Delforge, Geor-
goudi 2005: 29 no. 124 pl. 3; Connelly 2007: 95, 204 fig. 4.7 pl. 13.
13 Challenging the communis opinio that the honored woman is the priestess of Athena
Polias, Lambert (2007: 130; 2010: 232 n. 35; 2012: 92 n. 94) has recently interpreted her as the
priestess of Athena Nike – apparently because she is being crowned by Nike. The image of
Athena on the relief, however, clearly reproduces Pheidias’s famous chryselephantine statue in
the Parthenon holding Nike on her outstretched right hand. As Meyer (1989: 166–169, 244) has
shown, the so-called Athena Parthenos became the dominant model for representations of
Athena on Attic document reliefs just before the middle of the fourth century BCE. In addition,
on a roughly contemporary relief (Meyer 1989: 292 no. A93 pl. 25, 2), a similar scene shows Nike
crowning a male figure. Consequently, it would be unwise to infer from the fact that the klei-
douchos is being crowned by Nike that she was a priestess of Athena Nike.
14 Athens, Acropolis Museum AM 2758 and 2427. Meyer 1989: 287 no. A76 pl. 27, 1; Μάντης
1990: 41–42; Lawton 1995: 125 no. 91 pl. 48; Connelly 2007: 96–97, 204 fig. 4.8; von den Hoff
2008: 118–120 fig. 5.
15 Connelly 2007: 96–97. Nevertheless, she is most likely a priestess; see Meyer 1989: 212 with
n. 1490.
16 Lawton 1995: 31. It is therefore unlikely that the two reliefs belonged to a non-state decree
or a dedication without inscribed decree, as suggested by Lambert (2007: 130 n. 158; 2010: 232
n. 35; 2012: 92 n. 94). As Horster (2010: 188 n. 52) rightly notes, the reliefs are unlikely to have
been associated with deme decrees because Athena is absent from scenes decorating such
stelai.
17 Meyer 1989: 136: “Die Bekränzung ist offenbar eine Bildformel für Ehrungen schlechthin
[…].” For honorary decrees in which crowning is not included, see Henry 1983: 23–24.

Publicly Decreed Statues of Priestly Women

Among the various honors bestowed by Greek cities on their cult officials, in-
cluding (gold) crowns and front seats at public festivals (proedria), a portrait
statue in the public sphere of the polis was certainly not the least.18 This is, as
we will see, even more true in the case of women holding religious office. Por-
trait statues of living individuals other than victors are first surely attested at the
very end of the fifth century BCE. We hear of military leaders such as Alkibiades
and Lysandros who were honored by the Samians with portrait statues dedi-
cated in the Samian Heraion and at Olympia respectively.19 After 394, bronze
statues of Konon and Euagoras, king of Cypriot Salamis, were set up in the Athe-
nian agora.20 However, statuary honors for both male and female cult personnel
granted by civic bodies, typically dēmos and/or boulē, are largely a phenome-
non of the Hellenistic and Roman periods.
At Athens, the earliest extant base of a public honorary statue of a priestess
is dated to the mid-second century BCE.21 The inscription on the preserved
statue base from the Acropolis clearly mentions the dēmos as dedicator of
Philistion’s portrait.22 Philistion, daughter of Demochares of the deme Aithali-
dai, served as priestess of Pandrosos, and, even though the precise find spot of
the base was not recorded, we may assume that her statue stood in the sanctu-
ary of Pandrosos located immediately to the west of the Erechtheion.23
From the second century BCE onward, council and assembly of Pergamon
regularly honored priestesses of Athena Nikephoros with a statue.24 Several
bases of such statues, usually found nearby the sanctuary of Athena, have sur-
vived.25 One of the earliest bases also bears, along with the dedicatory inscrip-
tion, the lengthy honorary decree.26 The priestess Metris, daughter of Artemi-
||
18 Public sphere is meant here to include both civic sanctuaries and genuine civic space such
as the agora. Generally on honors conferred on religious office-holders, see Georgoudi,
Pirenne-Delforge 2005: 27–29.
19 Paus. 6.3.15.
20 See most recently Shear 2007.
21 IG II2 3481; Raubitschek 1945; SEG 39.218; Lambert 1999: 115; Eule 2002: 213 n. 32, 224 no.
A 16; von den Hoff 2008: 138; S. Dillon 2010: 39, 56, 177 no. 10.
22 ὁ δ[ῆ]μ̣ος Φιλίστιον Δημοχάρου Αἰθαλίδο[υ] θ̣υγατέρα ἱέρει[αν Παν]δρόσου.
23 Hurwit 1999: 204.
24 Cf. Eule 2001: 92–96, 205–207 nos. 42, 43, 45, 47, 51, 53–57, 62, 63; Connelly 2007: 140–141;
Mathys 2009: 232–234; S. Dillon 2010: 38–39.
25 Cf. Mathys 2009: 232–233 n. 35.
26 IPergamon 167; Eule 2001: 93, 95, 125, 206 no. 53. Cf. Jones 1974: 186–188, 205 (149 BCE).

160 | Oliver Pilz
doros, is honored by dēmos, boulē and stratēgoi with a gold crown and a bronze
portrait statue to be set up in the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros.27 In addition,
the decree stipulates the text for the base of the statue, which is indeed identical
with the first part of the inscription on the base.28 The fact that the dedicatory
inscriptions in several instances include both parents in the honors has led to
the assumption that the priestesses were still unmarried when they served their
four-year tenure.29 In the case of Metris, the allusion to the penteteric Nike-
phoria, a stephanitēs agōn, in the dedicatory inscription,30 probably implies that
the family of the young priestess substantially contributed to the organization
of the festival from its own resources. Prosopographical evidence in fact shows
in some cases that the priestesses belonged to elite families.31
A publicly decreed statue of a priestess of Demeter is attested at Erythrai in
the second century BCE. Council and assembly honored Zosima, priestess of
Demeter Thesmophoros, with a portrait:32
Ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμ[ος ἐτεί-]
μησεν Ζωσίμ[ην ---]
γόνης ἱέρειαν Δ[ήμη-]
τρος θεσμοφόρ[ου --]
[Κ]ο<ρ>ης ἱερασαμέ[νην ἔτη]
τεσσαράκοντα [εὐσε-]
βείας ἕνεκεν τ[ῆς]
[πρ]ὸς τὰς θεάς.
The fact that Zosima served as priestess for 40 years does not by any means
indicate how the priesthood was appointed.33 In any case, the cult of Demeter
Thesmophoros became increasingly important at Erythrai from the later
Hellenistic period onward.34 Therefore, the priesthood of the goddess was prob-
ably supplied by women of the leading families of Erythrai.
||
27 ll. 13–14. It would by hasty to infer from a single decree that all priestesses were equally
honored with both gold crown and bronze statue (so van Bremen 1996: 183); cf. the careful
remarks by Mathys 2009: 234.
28 ll. 1–4: ὁ δῆμος Μῆτριν Ἀρτεμιδώρου ἱρητεύσασαν τὰ ἔνατα Νικηφόρια τοῦ στεφανίτου
ἀγώνος.
29 Fränkel, IPergamon p. 327; van Bremen 1996: 248 n. 37; Eule 2001: 125. Four-year tenure:
Jones 1974: 188 n. 26.
30 See n. 28 above. Penteteric festival: Jones 1974: 184–188, 205.
31 Mathys 2009: 232 n. 34.
32 Pottier, Hauvette-Besnault 1880: 160–161 no. 11; IErythrai 69. Cf. Graf 1985: 278–279.
33 Eule 2001: 126 thinks of a genos priesthood.
34 Graf 1985: 273–280, esp. 273, 278.

Out of our current practice, one would certainly assume that the civic
bodies bore the expenses of making and erecting these honorary statues. How-
ever, as in the case of Metris, honorary decrees of the Late Classical and Hel-
lenistic periods only occasionally include any provisions regarding the costs of
the statues. It could thus be argued that such provisions would only have been
necessary if the civic body decreeing the statue had also taken on the expenses.
Consequently, publicly decreed statues were, save a few exceptions with de-
tailed regulations, paid for by the honorand or his/her family.35 On the other
hand, one could claim that the civic bodies normally assumed the costs, but the
corresponding provisions were not included in the inscribed version of the de-
cree.36 Neither explanation is entirely satisfactory, and it seems more likely that
both possibilities occurred equally as often. From the beginning of the second
century BCE onward, there is an increasing number of decrees explicitly men-
tioning that the honorand or a family member bears the expenses for the
statue.37 A Late Hellenistic inscription from Athens preserved in a sketchbook
from the early nineteenth century provides a striking example. The fragmentary
text records a decree of the Theoinidai genos38 apparently honoring a priestess
of Nymphe with a portrait statue in the sanctuary “at her own expense.”39
Privately Dedicated Portraits of Female Cult

Officials
Already from the fourth century BCE onward, portrait statues were privately
erected by male and female cult officials themselves or by family members. An
early example is the statue of Chairippe, priestess of Demeter and Kore.40 The
inscription on the preserved base found at Athens near the City Eleusinion re-
veals that the statue, a work by Praxiteles, was set up by Chairippe’s brothers
Aristodemos and Philophronos.
One of the few extant portraits of a female cult official is the marble statue
of Aristonoe, priestess of Nemesis, dedicated by her son Hierokles in the sanctu-
||
35 Lazzarini 1984/85: 94–95.
36 Gauthier 2005: 49.
37 Gauthier 2005: 49–62 discusses several instances.
38 SEG 29.135; Vanderpool 1979.
39 ll. 10–11: ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων. Cf. Connelly 2007: 144.
40 Ορφανού-Φλωράκη 2002/03; SEG 51.215; Ajootian 2007, 25–27; S. Dillon 2010, 57, 170 no. 14.

162 | Oliver Pilz
ary of Nemesis at Rhamnous.41 The inscription on the rectangular base desig-

nates the statue as a dedication to Themis and Nemesis. Like the priestess on
the document relief in Berlin, Aristonoe is dressed in a chiton and a himation,
but unlike the woman on the relief she is not equipped with a temple key. Her
right forearm, found in the excavation but now lost, showed that she was origi-
nally pouring out a libation from a phialē. The base and statue were found,
along with the well-known statue of Themis dedicated by Megakles, in situ in
the southwest corner of the cella of the smaller temple of the sanctuary. By the
time the portrait of Aristonoe was erected, this building was merely used as a
treasury.42 The recent re-dating of the inscription to the mid-second century BCE
by Stephen Tracy43 does not sit easily with the Early Hellenistic date established
on stylistic grounds for the statue but could be explained by a later re-use of the
portrait.
From the mid-third century BCE onward, bronze statues of arrhēphoroi were
dedicated by the parents or other relatives of the young girls at the Athenian
Acropolis.44 Roughly in the same period, the first portrait statues of kanēphoroi
also appear. The earliest extant base is dated to ca. 300 BCE and shows, in ad-
dition to the fragmentary inscription, four crowns.45 It has recently been argued
that these crowns point to an honorary statue set up by boulē and dēmos.46
Crowns, however, occasionally occur on privately dedicated monuments and
most probably allude to some official honor bestowed on the dedicant.47 Conse-
quently, the portrait of the girl was a private dedication rather than a publicly
decreed honorary statue. The first statue of a kanēphoros set up by boulē and
dēmos is dated, according to the extant statue base, to the second half of the
second century.48 This fits well with the fact that the earliest extant public
||
41 Athens, National Museum 232. IG II2 3462; Μάντης 1990: 103, 109–110 pl. 46 β, 47 β;
Πετράκος 1999: I 288 fig. 201; II 108–109 no. 133; Eule 2001: 42, 142, 185 no. 57, 215 fig. 63;
Kaltsas 2002: 274 no. 574 fig.; Pirenne-Delforge, Georgoudi 2005: 29 no. 126 pl. 3; Connelly
2007: 146 fig. 5.14; von den Hoff 2007, 24 fig. 28; von den Hoff 2008: 129–131 fig. 10.
42 Πετράκος 1999: I 200–202.
43 Tracy 1990: 165.
44 von den Hoff 2008: 131–137; Schmidt 2010.
45 IG II2 3457. See also Aleshire 1989: 90.
46 von den Hoff 2008: 133.
47 A mid-fourth century votive relief from the Athenian Asklepieion apparently dedicated by
the group of six men depicted in front of Asklepios, Demeter and Kore (IG II2 4359; Neumann
1979: 73 pl. 47 a; Aleshire 1989: 94–95) shows five crowns with the names and patronymics of
the honorands in the lower part. It is likely that the men privately dedicated the relief in order
to commemorate a public honoring.
48 IG II2 3477.

honorary statue of an Athenian priestess was set up in the mid-second cen-

tury.49 Indeed, even considering all the uncertainties of preservation, it would
have been remarkable if public statuary honors were awarded to minor cult
officials such as kanēphoroi much earlier than to polis priestesses.
A dedicatory inscription from Erythrai dated to the fourth or early third cen-
tury BCE shows that a portrait statue could also be established by a priestly
woman herself:50
[Σ]ιμὼ τήν [δ’ ἔστη]σ[α] γ̣υνὴ Ζωίλου Διο̣νύσωι
[ἱ<ε>]ρέα πρὸ πόλεως Παγκρατίδεω θυγάτηρ,
[εἰ]κ[ό]να μὲ[μ] μ̣ορφῆς, ἀρετῆς δ’ ἐπίδειγμα καὶ ὄλβου,
[ἀθ]άνατον μνήμην παισί τε καὶ προγόνοις.
The text, in particular the expression [ἱ<ε>]ρέα πρὸ πόλεως, has caused consi-
derable confusion. Like many others, Merkelbach and Stauber in their recent
edition of the epigram, probably correctly assume that Simo was a priestess of
Dionysos. In addition, interpreting πρὸ πόλεως in a purely spatial sense, they
think of Simo as “Leiterin der dionysischen Ausflüge und Picknicks auf dem
Lande”, thus in charge of the Dionysiac excursions and picnics in the country-
side.51 However, as Jeanne and Louis Robert have convincingly shown, the for-
mula ἱερεὺς πρὸ πόλεως rarely has a spatial meaning, but usually refers to
priesthood in a public cult financed by the polis.52 In this latter, figurative sense,
πρὸ πόλεως designates Simo as priestess in a civic cult in contrast to cults esta-
blished and run by other groups or individuals. In connection with a theonym,
the expression πρὸ πόλεως frequently refers to the patron deity of the polis,53
but this is clearly not the case here.54 A translation of the epigram could thus
run as follows: “I [S]imo, wife of Zoilos, priestess of the city, daughter of Pan-
kratides, have erected this image of beauty and example of excellence and
wealth, for Dionysos as an eternal memento for my children and children’s
children.”
As a priestess of Dionysos, Simo did not serve one of the patron deities of
Erythrai.55 Still, due to the dramatic, comic or musical agones linked to the cult
of the god, Dionysiac festivals enjoyed enormous popularity in many Greek
||
49 See above n. 21.
50 CIG 2.858; IErythrai 210 a; Merkelbach, Stauber 1998: 378. See also Kron 1996: 149; Connelly
2007: 139.
51 Merkelbach, Stauber 1998: 378.
52 Robert, Robert 1983: 171–176. See also Schuller 2010: 74–79.
53 Robert, Robert 1983: 171–172.
54 Pace Guettel Cole 2007: 336: “priestess of Dionysus ‘Protector of the Polis’.”
55 Graf 198: 283–295.

164 | Oliver Pilz
cities. That this was the case in Erythrai, too, is indicated by the fact that the
sanctuary of Dionysos was equipped with a stone theater in the late fourth cen-
tury BCE.56 In addition, during the third century, Dionysos prominently appears
on the coins of Erythrai.57 During the same period, the festival of the Seleukeia
was celebrated in the theater in connection with the Dionysia. The Seleukeia,
honoring king Seleukos I, probably commemorated the liberation of Erythrai
from the rule of Lysimachos after the battle of Kouropedion in 281 BCE.58
Furthermore, as Christian Habicht has shown, newly established festivals or
agones honoring Hellenistic rulers were usually attached to the most prominent
existing festival of a given city.59 All this suggests that the Dionysia already
played an eminent role at Erythrai at least from the later fourth century onward,
and there can be no doubt that the association with the Seleukeia further con-
tributed to the importance of the festival. It is highly probable that Simo, as
priestess of the civic cult of Dionysos, acted in this context.
In later fourth-century Priene, Menedemos erected a statue of his daughter
Niko, priestess of Athena Polias.60 Although its exact provenance has not been
recorded, the well-preserved base is usually believed to come from the sanctu-
ary of Athena Polias, the patron deity of Priene. The only priestesses of Athena
Polias we hear of later are Habrotera, daughter of Pythotimos, and, probably,
Zoillis, daughter of Athenopolis.61 Portraits of both women were included in a
family group monument of the second century BCE along with statues of Kydi-
mos, Zoillis’ brother, and other relatives.62 The inscribed base fragments found
in the Westtorstraße immediately to the east of the Market Gate have tentatively
been assigned to a foundation in front of the East Stoa of the market place
(Mylonopoulos, p. 153 Fig. 9).63 The fathers of the priestesses, Pythotimos and
Athenopolis, were almost certainly brothers, and we learn from the inscription
that Kydimos, Zoillis’s brother, married his paternal cousin, Habrotera, who
served as priestess of Athena Polias.64 Whereas the statues of Kydimos and
||
56 Mellink 1980: 513; Sear 2006: 336–337.
57 SNG Cop. 655.
58 Habicht 1970: 85–87.
59 Habicht 1970: 149–150.
60 IPriene 160; Carter 1983: 251; Eule 2001: 104, 207 no. 67; S. Dillon 2010: 42, 53.
61 IPriene 162.
62 Eule 2001: 104–105, 207–208 no. 71.
63 Raeck 1995: 235.
64 For the stemma, see Hiller von Gaertringen, IPriene p. 154.

Zoillis were set up by their mother,65 the name of the dedicator of Habrotera’s
portrait is not preserved.66 The statue group showing the children of Pythotimos
and Athenopolis is one of the earliest family monuments, which was not set up
in a sanctuary, but in the agora, the civic core of the polis.
It is hard to imagine that such a conspicuous monument could have been
erected without formal approval by council and assembly.67 At Kyzikos, in the
early first century BCE, boulē and dēmos approved the request by three groups
of female cult officials to set up a bronze statue of Kleidike Asklepiadou, priest-
ess of Meter Plakiane and Artemis Mounychia.68 The place where the portrait
statue was to be erected is precisely defined as “in the men’s agora by the
synedrion of her ancestors, beside the statue of her brother.”69 In addition, the
decree stipulates a lengthy text for the base of Kleidike’s statue.70 As the reason
for honoring Kleidike, the decree mentions that she made a donation of 700
staters for organizing the festival of Meter Plakiane.
Interestingly, here, the role of the dedicator is not assumed by the dēmos
but by three groups of female cult officials: syntelousai to the adorment of Meter
Plakiane, female hieropoioi known as thalassiai and hiereiai that are not further
specified. As customary, the women could not directly appeal to the civic
bodies. Instead, the initiative for the decree was taken by one Aristandros, son
of Apollophanes. Another citizen, Apollonios Apollophanou, in all likelihood
Aristandros’s brother, made the proposal for a second decree honoring Kleidike
with a painted portrait to be set up in the parthenōn of the sanctuary of Meter
Plakiane.71 The two brothers belonged to a prominent family of Kyzikos,72 and it
can be assumed that Kleidike was somehow related to them.
||
65 Eule 2001: 104 and Connelly 2007: 139 erroneously think that the statues were dedicated by
both parents.
66 In contrast to Kydimos, Harbotera is not mentioned as a child of the dedicant, but as
daughter of Pythotimos and his wife whose name is lost. It is therefore unlikely that her statue,
as Eule (2001: 104 n. 304) argues, was erected by one or both parents.
67 Cf. van Bremen 1996: 179 n. 132.
68 CIG 2.3657; Michel 1900: 403–404 no. 537. Cf. van Bremen 1996: 171, 187 n. 157; Connelly
2007: 141.
69 ll. 7–8: ἐν τῇ ἀνδρῄᾳ ἀγορᾷ ἐπὶ τοῦ προγονικοῦ αὐτῆς συνεδρίου τὸν ἀπὸ δύσεως τοῦ
ἀνδριάντος τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῆς. It is not clear whether synedrion refers to a building (Lolling
1882: 154) or a family group monument (van Bremen 1996: 187).
70 ll. 10–16.
71 Lolling 1882: 154–159; Michel 1900: 404 no. 538. Cf. van Bremen 1996: 171 n. 132, 187. Con-
nelly 2007: 141 erroneously states that the priestess was honored with a statue.
72 Habicht 2005: 94–95.

166 | Oliver Pilz
Returning to Priene, the family of Pythotimos, in addition to supplying the

priestess of Athena Polias at least twice, was also associated with the cult of
Dionysos. The example of Erythrai has already elucidated the important role
Dionysiac festivals played in the Hellenistic period. In the early second century
BCE, Pythotimos, serving as agōnothetēs, dedicated an altar in the theater of Pri-
ene.73 The fact that the agōnothesia usually involved substantial contributions
from their own financial resources74 is a further indication of the family’s elite
status. Pythotimos’s nephew Kydimos appeared as priest of Dionysos Phleos in
the family monument discussed above.75 In the later second century, Kydimos’
son Athenopolis acquired the same priesthood for the exceptional sum of
12,002 drachmas.76 Two decrees inscribed on the walls of the North Stoa honor
the same Athenopolis and his brother Moschion for their civic generosity.77
The sanctuary of Demeter at Priene provides further evidence for portrait
statues of female cult officials dedicated by the women themselves. Just outside
the entrance to the temenos (Mylonopoulos, p. 146 Fig. 2), an inscribed statue
base was found along with a marble statue whose plinth exactly fits in the
cutting on the upper side of the base (Mylonopoulos, p. 147 Fig. 3).78 It is usually
assumed that the inscription identifies the portrayed women as Nikeso,
priestess of Demeter and Kore:79
Νι[κ]ησὼ Ἱπποσθένους
Ẹὐκρίτου δὲ γυνή
ἱερῆ Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης
Based on the letter forms of the inscription, the headless statue has been dated
to the first half of the third century BCE. Nikeso’s left arm is tightly wrapped in
the himation, while her right arm, which is now lost, was probably raised to
about shoulder height. Challenging earlier reconstructions,80 Uta Kron has con-
||
73 IPriene 175.
74 Quaß 1993: 275–285.
75 IPriene 162 B.
76 IPriene 174.
77 IPriene 107, 108. For Athenopolis and Moschion, see Quaß 1993: 111, 197–198, 244.
78 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung Sk 1928. Μάντης 1990: 98–99 pl. 44 β; Ridg-
way 1990: 210–212; Kron 1996: 146–148 fig. 4; Eule 2001: 43–44, 105–107, 120, 179–180 no. 43
fig. 71; Connelly 2007: 137–139 fig. 5.12; von den Hoff 2007: 23–24 fig. 27; S. Dillon 2010: 77–78
figs. 2, 65.
79 IPriene 173. Because of the unusual long hair, the statue has been occasionally identified as
an image of the goddess Demeter. For further discussion of this issue, see Ridgway 1990: 210–
211 and Kron 1996: 147.
80 Μάντης 1990: 98–99.

vincingly argued that the statue held a torch in her right hand.81 Near the statue
of Nikeso, the excavators found a cylindrical base for the bronze statue of a
further priestess of Demeter and Kore, Timonassa.82 According to the letter
forms of the dedicatory inscription on the base, the statue of Timonassa was
erected in the fourth or third century BCE. It is open to question whether or not
both statues originally stood inside the enclosure and were moved to the en-
trance at a later time.83 Be that as it may, a location immediately in front of the
entrance is fairly prominent, since every visitor to the sanctuary had to pass the
statues.
Stressing the absence of the name of the dedicator in the inscriptions,
Sheila Dillon has recently argued that the statues of Nikeso and Timonassa were
“set up by the people of Priene rather than by members of the women’s fami-
lies.”84 In order to strengthen her argument, Dillon points to a roughly contem-
porary inscription on the base of the publicly decreed statue of Megabyxos,
neokoros of Artemis at Ephesos, showing a similar nominative formula.85 This is
indeed one of the rare instances in which both honorary decree and statue base
can be studied together.86 Boulē and dēmos of Priene honored Megabyxos with a
gold crown and a bronze statue to be erected in front of the temple of Athena
Polias. Given the fact that in third-century Priene even foreign benefactors were
only rarely granted a portrait statue,87 it seems quite unlikely that two otherwise
unattested local priestesses received this honor in the fourth or third centuries.
In addition, not a single decree honoring a female cult official and not a single
base of a publicly erected statue for a woman is known from Hellenistic Priene.88
Even though an explicit dedicatory element is missing, the two inscriptions
mentioning Nikeso and Timonassa correspond to the dedicatory formula of the
type ὁ δεῖνα (ἀνέθεκε).89 A comparison with two dedicatory inscriptions from
||
81 Kron 1996: 148. See also S. Dillon 2010: 77–78.
82 IPriene 172, p. 311; Eule 2001: 105, 106, 207 no. 69; S. Dillon 2010: 41.
83 Cf. Kron 1996: 148 n. 48. Paus. 7.25.7 mentions marble statues of women, reportedly por-
traits of former priestesses, standing κατὰ τὴν ἔσοδον ἐς τὸ ἱερὸν (of the Eumenids at Kery-
neia).
84 S. Dillon 2010: 41.
85 IPriene 231: [Μεγάβυξος] Μεγαβύξου νεωκόρος τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσωι. Cf. Ma 2007:
208. For the cult officials bearing the priestly title Megabyxos, see Bremmer 2008: 38–42.
86 Decree: IPriene 3, now dated to the 290s by Crowther 1996.
87 van Bremen 1996: 180.
88 van Bremen 1996: 182: “Even if we allow for the relative scarcity of female benefactors and
liturgist at this time, it is still significant that here even priestesses were not (yet) deemed
worthy of public statuary honors.”; Eule 2001: 125.
89 Cf. the inscription on the base of Simo’s portrait statue discussed above.

168 | Oliver Pilz
the sanctuary of Athena at Lindos on Rhodos will further clarify the case. Riet
van Bremen has observed that all statues set up in this sanctuary in the fourth
century were explicitly dedicated to the goddess.90 As an example, van Bremen
mentions a base which originally carried a male bronze statue, presumably
showing the priest Pythokles.91 Subsequently, the dedicatory element was
occasionally replaced by a genitive construction depending on ἱερατεύσας as
the inscription on a base of the mid-third century indicates.92 It was apparently
customary for the priests of Athena, after their term of service, to dedicate their
portraits in the sanctuary, and there is no evidence that these statues were
anything other than privately erected anathēmata. Consequently, the individual
mentioned in the nominative case is the dedicant himself. Most likely, the same
is true for the two dedicatory inscriptions from Priene. Similar to Simo’s portrait,
the statues of Nikeso and Timonassa were thus privately set up by the priest-
esses themselves.93
Another inscription in the nominative case found inside the same precinct
of Demeter and Kore needs further explanation.94 The short text, which men-
tions the priestess Tyrinno, daughter of Epameinon, and her husband Phrattis,
son of Pythotimos, in the nominative, has been misinterpreted by referring to a
dedication of portrait statues of two priestesses, Tyrinno and Phrattis, by
Tyrinno’s brother.95 However, as the formula ὁ δεῖνα (ἀνέθηκε) ὑπὲρ τοῦ δεῖνος
εὐχήν clearly indicates, Tyrinno and Phrattis made a dedication in fulfillment of
a vow to the benefit of their son, Epameinon.96 Since the rather narrow block,
showing seven dowel holes in the top, is hardly suitable for one or more life-size
bronze statues, the character of the dedication remains unclear. Interestingly,
based on their patronymics, we may associate Phrattis and Tyrinno with the
family of Pythotimos, father of Habrotera.97 Among the descendants of Diokles,
son of Pythotimos, who set up a bronze statue of their progenitor on the agora
in the second half of the second century BCE, the name Epameinon appears.98 In
||
90 For the following, see van Bremen 1996: 177.
91 ILindos 58 (ca. 311): Πυθοκλῆς Παυσία ἱερατεύσας Ἀθαναίαι Λίνδιαι.
92 ILindos 91, l. 2: ἱερατεύσας Ἀθανᾶς Λινδίας. Again the base carried a male bronze statue.
93 So already Kron 1996: 146.
94 IPriene 170: ἱερῆ Τυριννὼ Ἐπαμείνονος καὶ Φράττις Πυθοτίμου ὑπὲρ τοῦ υἱοῦ Ἐπαμεί-
νονος ε̣ὐχήν. (second century BCE).
95 Eule 2001: 106, 121, 207 no. 70; Connelly 2007: 139.
96 Cf. Lazzarini 1989/90: 849–850, 855. For the name Phrattis, see LGPN V.A 458.
97 See above n. 61.
98 IPriene 268 I B. The monument included a statue of Diokles’s brother Athenopolis who is
honored for his athletic victories in two epigrams inscribed on the base: Merkelbach, Stauber
1998: 291–292.

fact, it would be tempting to see in Phrattis’s father Pythotimos, the son of Dio-
kles. Whatever the exact relation might have been, the idea is intriguing that the
family of Pythotimos also supplied, with Phrattis’s wife Tyrinno, the polis
priestess of Demeter and Kore.
Some Conclusions
Overall, the evidence considered so far shows that female cult officials were
only reluctantly honored with portrait statues by civic bodies. In Hellenistic
Athens, the usual and rather modest form of honoring both male and female
cult officials was crowning them with a wreath of leaves (stephanos thallou).
Publicly decreed honorary statues of female cult personnel first appeared in
Athens and elsewhere during the second century BCE.99 It is probably not
coincidental that this happened at the same time when, as we have seen, the
honorands themselves or family members increasingly assumed the expenses
for the statues.100 On the contrary, it rather seems that the latter development
made it possible to bestow honorary statues to women in the first place. Even
though dēmos and boulē appeared as dedicators in the inscriptions on the bases
of these statues, it would be misleading to conclude that the civic bodies were
“taking over the role of the relatives.”101 In many cases, the civic bodies might
have merely provided an official text for the dedicatory inscription, while the
statue was privately funded by the family of the honorand.
Privately erected statues of priestly women are attested as early as the first
half of the fourth century. However, the fact that these statues are private dedi-
cations does not preclude that they might have occasionally commemorated
other public honors awarded by civic bodies.
It has become clear that it was customary to set up honorary decrees for cult
officials in the relevant sanctuaries. The same applies to portrait statues of cult
personnel regardless of whether these were privately erected or publicly de-
creed statues. To set up portraits of priests and priestesses at their place of ac-
tivity is paralleled by the common practice of associating honorary statues of
benefactors with their building projects. In the early third century, Megabyxos
was granted a portrait statue to be erected not in the market place but in front of
||
99 Cf. van Bremen 1996: 183–185 on honorary statues for women in general.
100 See above n. 37.
101 van Bremen 1996: 183.

170 | Oliver Pilz
the temple of Athena Polias at Priene completed with his financial assistance.102
At Kyme, in the last decades of the second century BCE, the benefactress
Archippe was honored by the dēmos with a bronze statue group including her
portrait crowned by Demos.103 On the same base as a portrait of Archippe’s fa-
ther, this statue group was placed in front of the newly-built bouleutērion
funded by her.104 It is therefore not surprising that honorary statues of cult
personnel are largely absent from the agorai of Greek cities.105 Nevertheless, in
the context of family group monuments, as the example of Pythotimos’s pri-
vately erected family monument in the market place of Priene shows, reference
could be made to religious offices held by both male and female family mem-
bers.
The Economic Logic of Statuary Honors

To set up a life-size bronze or marble statue means spending a considerable sum
of money, probably several thousand drachmas.106 One could now, as Sheila
Dillon did, wonder why somebody would expend significant funds on “[...] an
object that was in essence useless.”107 But this would mean applying a capitalist
logic of economic interest to a pre-capitalist society; according to this, any in-
vestment would have to pay off with a material profit. Even though practices
oriented toward non-material gains frequently seem to escape our own narrow
logic of economic interest, each and every practice complies with an economic
logic.108
If this is true, how can the economic logic of privately dedicating a portrait
statue be described? Here, as is the case with most euergetic activity, an invest-
||
102 See above n. 86. Cf. Carter 1983: 36–37.
103 SEG 33.1035, ll. 1–3. Cf. Eule 2001: 202–203 no. 29. Generally on Archippe, see van Bremen
1996: 13–19.
104 SEG 33.1037, ll. 12–15. Cf. Meier 2012: 342–353, esp. 349.
105 What is intriguing is the case of a privately erected statue of Apollodoros, priest of Zeus
Basileus and the Kouretes (IPriene 186, second century BCE). The base of his portrait (My-
lonopoulos, p. 150 Fig. 6) was found in situ in the northwest corner of the agora near the stairs
leading to the sanctuary of Athena Polias. One can only speculate whether a sanctuary or altar
of Zeus Basileus and the Kouretes was situated nearby or a particularly prominent location was
chosen for the statue.
106 On prices of statues, see Gauthier 2000: 48 with n. 31.
107 S. Dillon 2010: 9.
108 Bourdieu 1990: 122.

ment of economic capital is made in order to appropriate not material, but sym-
bolic profit.109 As in our own culture, this process of converting economic capital
into symbolic capital is usually disguised by giving it the appearance of gener-
ous disinterestedness. In fact, what social actors tell us about the reasons they
pursue certain practices frequently obscures the underlying objective social
function these practices fulfill. Simo, by contrast, is remarkably explicit about
the motivation to set up her statue: it is aimed to serve as an example of ἀρετή
(excellence) and ὄλβος (wealth) for her descendants.
As a socially recognized and officially approved way for the publicly visible
display of wealth, the practice of erecting a costly statue for oneself or a family
member is a means of exhibiting power in the first place. Thereby, the practice
not only contributes to the legitimation, but, to a certain extent, also to the re-
production of the prevailing social hierarchies in so far as the acquired symbolic
capital allows the family to assert future claims to public offices, priesthoods or
other privileges.
This is not to deny that aspects such as commemoration, recognition for
pious service, etc., were important and have provided the conscious motivation
to erect a statue in several cases.110 But it would be fallacious, by exclusively
drawing on these factors, to neglect the objective social function of the practice,
that is, ultimately, to legitimize and perpetuate existing relations of domination.
The self-representation of members of the dominant social groups is never an
end in itself but an essential means of transforming de facto differences in the
distribution of power into socially recognized distinctions.
As a matter of fact, the majority of the portrait statues of female cult officials
were set up by male family members such as fathers, husbands or sons, and
only occasionally do mothers alone appear as dedicators. Furthermore, in the
few cases in which priestesses dedicate the statues themselves, the father and
husband are consistently mentioned. All these monuments are therefore better
understood in the context of the family affiliation of the portrayed women.
Especially among the elite, strong family ties were a sine qua non for the preser-
vation of the social and economic status that the group had achieved. This is in
accordance with the fact that honors for female cult personnel, as the cases of
Timokrite, and possibly Kleidike, indicate, were actively pursued by their male
family members in various cases. The example of Kleidike, priestess of Meter
Plakiane, who was honored with a bronze statue for funding the festival of the
||
109 For the following, see Bourdieu 1990: 112–134.
110 In both decrees honoring female cult personnel and dedicatory inscriptions of statues
showing priestly women eusebeia is repeatedly praised as the women’s key virtue.

172 | Oliver Pilz
goddess, points to the crucial importance of personal financial contributions in

this context. If a larger number of honorary decrees were preserved, we would
probably see that women holding religious office were frequently awarded with
public statuary honors in recognition of their role as “cultic” benefactors. Here,
ultimately, it becomes clear that only families that already control significant
accumulations of economic, symbolic and social capital could aim for a publicly
decreed portrait of a family member.
Whenever the costs are assumed by the honorand or a family member, the
establishment of a publicly decreed honorary statue can be seen as a conversion
of economic capital into symbolic capital which might, in turn, be employed in
order to appropriate future profits. Yet, it would be simplistic to reduce the
whole process to this aspect. In a truly structuralist manner, euergetism is, by
analogy with gift exchange, frequently conceived of as a cycle of reciprocity. In
this abstract model, acts of benefaction and their recognition are, so to speak,
mechanically linked: euergetism automatically results in recognition that again
elicits further benefactions, and so on. In reality, however, there is no automa-
tism in this process.111 Acts of benefaction may, for any number of reasons, be
rejected altogether by the recipients. In other instances, for whatever reasons,
benefactors may be denied an appropriate recognition. Even though such cases
are largely undocumented during the period in question, they must have oc-
curred with some frequency. In brief, a certain degree of uncertainty always
remains with respect to the recognition of euergetic activity.
As a result, benefactors are likely to adopt strategies in order to achieve the
desired outcome. This is all the more true as soon as appropriate recognition of
beneficence essentially contributes to legitimizing relations of domination. In
the specific case of honorary statues decreed by civic bodies, families might
have had to expend, under certain conditions, considerable social capital to
obtain a positive decision by dēmos and boulē.
||
111 Bourdieu 1990: 98–111.

Bibliography
Ajootian, A. (2007). “Praxiteles and Fourth-Century Athenian Portraiture.” In: Schulz, P, R. von
den Hoff (eds.), Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context. Cambridge. 13–33.
Aleshire, S. B. (1989). The Athenian Asklepieion: The People, Their Dedications, and the Inven-
tories. Amsterdam.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Translated by R. Nice. Stanford.
van Bremen, Riet (1996). The Limits of Participation: Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in
the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Amsterdam.
Bremmer, J. (2008). “Priestly Personnel of the Ephesian Artemision: Anatolian, Persian, Greek,
and Roman Aspects.” In: Dignas, Trampedach 2008: 37–53.
Carter, J. C. (1983). The Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene. London.
Connelly, J. B. (2007). Portrait of a Priestess: Woman and Ritual in Ancient Greece. Princeton.
Crowther, C. V. (1996). “I.Priene 8 and the History of Priene in the Early Hellenistic Period.”
Chiron: 195–250.
Dignas, B., K. Trampedach (eds.) (2008). Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Reli-
gious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus. Washington, D.C.
Dillon, M. (2002). Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion. London.
Dillon, S. (2010). The Female Portrait Statue in the Greek World. Cambridge.
Dontas, G. S. (1983). “The True Aglaurion.”. Hesperia 52: 48–63.
Eule, J. C. (2001). Hellenistische Bürgerinnen aus Kleinasien. Weibliche Gewandstatuen in
ihrem antiken Kontext. Istanbul.
― (2002). “Die statuarische Darstellung von Frauen in Athen im 4. und frühen 3. Jh. v. Chr.”
In: Blum, H. (ed.), Brückenland Anatolien? Ursachen, Extensität und Modi des Kulturaus-
tausches zwischen Anatolien und seinen Nachbarn. Tübingen. 205–229
Gauthier, P. (2000). “Le décret de Thessalonique pour Parnassos: l’évergète et la dépense
pour se statue à la basse époque hellénistique.” Tekmeria 5: 39–62.
Graf, F. (1985). Nordionische Kulte. Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchun-
gen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia. Rome.
Guettel Cole, S. (2007). “Finding Dionysos.” In: Ogden, D. (ed.), Companion to Greek Religion.
Malden, Mass. 327–341
Habicht, Ch. (1970). Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. 2nd ed. Munich.
― (2005). “Notes on Inscriptions from Cyzikus.” EA 38: 93–100.
Henry, A. S. (1983). Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of
Athenian Honorary Decrees. Hildesheim.
Horster, M. (2010). “Lysimache and the Others: Some Notes on the Position of Women in Athe-
nian Religion.” In: Reger, G., F. X. Ryan, T. F. Winters (eds.), Studies in Greek Epigraphy
and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy. Paris. 177–192.
― (2012). “The Tenure, Appointment and Eponymy of Priesthoods and Their (Debatable)
Ideological and Political Implications.” In: Horster, Klöckner 2012: 161–208.
Horster, M., A. Klöckner (eds.) (2012). Civic Priests: Cult Personnel in Athens from the Helle-
nistic Period to Late Antiquity. RGVV 58. Berlin.
Hurwit, J. M. (1999). The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the
Neolithic Era to the Present. Cambridge.
Jones, C. P. (1974). “Diodoros Pasparos and the Nikephoria of Pergamon.” Chiron 4: 183–205.
Kaltsas, N. (2002). Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Los Angeles.

174 | Oliver Pilz
Kron, U. (1996). “Priesthoods, Dedications and Euergetism. What Part Did Religion Play in the
Political and Social Status of Greek Women?” In: Hellström, P., B. Alroth (eds.), Religion
and Power in the Ancient World. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1993. Bo-
reasUpps 24. Stockholm. 139–182.
Lambert, S. D. (1999). “IG II2 2345, Thiasoi of Herakles and the Salaminioi Again.” ZPE 125: 93–
130.
― (2007). “Athenian State Laws and Decrees, 352/1–322/1: III Decrees Honouring Foreig-
ners. B. Other Awards”. ZPE 159: 101–154.
― (2010). “Connecting with the Past in Lykourgan Athens: An Epigraphic Perspective.” In:
Foxhall, L., H.-J. Gehrke, N. Luraghi (eds.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient
Greece. Stuttgart. 225–238.
― (2012). “The Social Construction of Priest and Priestesses.” In: Horster, Klöckner 2012:
67–133.
Lawton, C. L. (1995). Attic Document Reliefs. Oxford.
Lazzarini, M. L. (1984/85). “Epigrafia e statua ritratto: alcuni problemi.” Atti e memorie
dell’Accademia Patavina di scienze, lettere ed arti. Memorie della classe di scienze morali,
lettere ed arti 98: 83–103.
― (1989/90). “Iscrizioni votive greche.” In: Bartoloni, G., G. Colonna, C. Grottanelli (eds.),
Anathema. Regime delle offerte e vita dei santuari nel Mediterraneo antico. Atti del Con-
vegno internazionale, Roma 15–18 giugno 1989. ScAnt 3/4: 843–860.
Lewis, D. M. (1983). “A Loyal Husband?” ZPE 52: 48.
Lolling, H. G. (1882). “Mitteilungen aus Kleinasien IV. Der Kult der Kybele aus Plakia.” AM 7:
151–159.
Ma, J. (2007). “Hellenistic Honorific Statues and Their Inscriptions.” In: Newby, Z., R. Leader-
Newby (eds.), Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World. Cambridge. 203–220.
Μάντης, Α. Γ. (1990). Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία
ελληνική τέχνη. Αθήνα.
Mathys, M. (2009). “Der Anfang vom Ende oder das Ende des Anfangs. Strategien visueller
Repräsentation im späthellenistischen Pergamon.” In: Matthaei, A., M. Zimmermann
(eds.), Stadtbilder im Hellenismus. Berlin. 227–242.
Meier, L. (2012). Die Finanzierung öffentlicher Bauten in der hellenistischen Polis. Mainz.
Mellink, M. J. (1980). “Archaeology in Asia Minor.” AJA 84: 501–518.
Merkelbach, R., J. Stauber (1998). Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten I. Stuttgart
1998.
Meyer, M. (1989). Die griechischen Urkundenreliefs. AM Suppl. 13. Berlin.
Michel, C. (1900). Recueil d’inscriptions grecques. Brussels.
Neumann, G. (1979). Probleme des griechischen Weihreliefs. Tübingen.
Ορφανού-Φλωράκη, Β. (2002/03). “Πραξιτέλης ἐποίησεν.” Horos 14–16: 113–117.
Πετράκος, Β. Χ. (1999). Ο δήμος του Ραμνούντος Ι–ΙΙ. Αθήνα.
Pirenne-Delforge, V., S. Georgoudi (2005). “Personnel de culte.” ThesCRA 5, 1–65.
Pottier, E., A. Hauvette-Besnault (1880). “Inscriptions d’Érythrées et de Téos.” BCH 4: 153–182.
Quaß, F. (1993). Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens. Unter-
suchungen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit.
Stuttgart.
Raeck, W. (1995). “Der mehrfache Apollodoros. Zur Präsenz des Bürgers im hellenistischen
Stadtbild am Beispiel von Priene.” In: Wörrle, M., P. Zanker (eds.), Stadtbild und Bürger-
bild im Hellenismus. Kolloquium, München, 24. bis 26. Juni 1993. München. 231–240.

Raubitschek, A. E. (1945). “The Priestess of Pandrosos.” AJA 49: 434–435.

Ridgway, B. S. (1990). Hellenistic Sculpture I: The Styles of ca. 331–200 B.C. Bristol.
Robert, J., L. Robert (1983). Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie I. Paris.
Scafuro, A. C. (2009). “The Crowning of Amphiaraos.” In: Mitchell, L. G., L. Rubinstein (eds.),
Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P. J. Rhodes. Swansea. 59–86.
Schmidt, R. (2010). “Mädchen im Heiligtum. Die Arrhephoren auf der Akropolis im Hellenismus
und in der Kaiserzeit.” In: Krumeich, R., C. Witschel (eds.), Die Akropolis von Athen im
Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Wiesbaden. 219–232.
Schuller, C. (2010). “Priester πρὸ πόλεως in Lykien. Eine neue Inschrift aus dem Territorium von
Patara.” ZPE 17: 69–86.
Sear, F. (2006). Roman Theaters: An Architectural Study. Oxford.
Shear, J. L. (2007). “Cultural Change, Space, and the Politics of Commemoration.” In: Osborne,
R. (ed.), Debating the Athenian Cultural Revolution: Art, Literature, Philosophy, and Poli-
tics 430–380 BC. Cambridge. 91–115.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C., R. Parker (2011). Athenian Myths and Festivals: Aglauros, Erechtheus,
Plynteria, Panathenaia, Dionysia. Oxford.
Tracy, S. V. (1990). Attic Letter-Cutters of 229 to 86 B.C. Berkeley.
Turner, J. A. (1983). Hiereiai: Acquisition of Feminine Priesthoods in Ancient Greece. Ph.D.
thesis University of California, Santa Barbara.
Vanderpool, E. (1979). “The Genos Theonidai Honors a Priestess of Nymphe.” AJP 100: 213–
216.
von den Hoff, R. (2007). “Die Plastik der Diadochenzeit.” In: Bol, P. C. (ed.), Die Geschichte der
antiken Bildhauerkunst III. Mainz. 1–40.
― (2008). “Images and Prestige of Cult Personnel in Athens Between the Sixth and the First
Centuries BC.” In: Dignas, Trampedach 2008: 107–141.


The Profits of Self-Representation Statu PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Profits of Self-Representation Statu PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cities and Priests

Cult personnel in Asia Minor and the Aegean islands

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

© 2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Marietta Horster, Anja Klöckner (Mainz/Gießen)

Delphine Ackermann (Poitiers)

Ludwig Meier (Heidelberg)

Isabelle Pafford (San Francisco)

Jan-Mathieu Carbon, Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge (Liège)

Joannis Mylonopoulos (New York)

Oliver Pilz (Mainz)

Marietta Horster (Mainz)

Christina R. Williamson (Groningen)

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Stéphanie Paul (Liège)

Peter Kató (Heidelberg)

Anja Klöckner (Gießen)

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Early Public Honors for Female Cult Personnel

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Publicly Decreed Statues of Priestly Women

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Privately Dedicated Portraits of Female Cult

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

ary of Nemesis at Rhamnous.41 The inscription on the rectangular base desig-

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

honorary statue of an Athenian priestess was set up in the mid-second cen-

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Returning to Priene, the family of Pythotimos, in addition to supplying the

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

The Economic Logic of Statuary Honors

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

goddess, points to the crucial importance of personal financial contributions in

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Raubitschek, A. E. (1945). “The Priestess of Pandrosos.” AJA 49: 434–435.

Bereitgestellt von | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen